Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Foreign Office Building

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations have been made to him concerning the proposal to add a top storey to the Foreign Office building; and whether he will give an assurance that no action will be taken which would affect the appearance of the skyline of the building.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The proposal, which has been accepted by the Royal Fine Art Commission, is to add a further storey to part only of the Foreign Office building. The only representation I have received is from the Victorian Society. The effect of the scheme on the skyline of the building should be scarcely noticeable.

Dr. Stross: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and especially for the reassurance in the latter part of his Answer? Are we to assume that he has had the best possible advice from other sources, as well as the view of the Royal Fine Art Commission?

Mr. Rippon: I think that that may fairly be assumed.

10–12, Downing Street and Treasury

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when it is now hoped to complete the work on Nos. 10–12, Downing Street and the Treasury, respectively.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works on what basis he estimates that the reconstruction of Nos. 10, 11, and 12, Downing Street will be completed by August, 1963.

Mr. Rippon: The reconstruction of Nos. 10, 11, and 12, Downing Street and the Treasury is expected to be completed in August, 1963. This date is based on close discussion with the main contractor who has prepared a detailed programme for the work in consultation with the unions concerned. In agreement with the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives the main contractor has introduced a special incentive bonus scheme which is based on completion of the work in August, 1963.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much has been expended to date, or to the nearest date, on this reconstruction?

Mr. Rippon: I cannot give the figure as of this moment.

Sir H. Oakshott: Am I not right in thinking that formerly at the end of Downing Street, at the top of the steps leading to Foreign Office Green, there was an archway? Is there any chance of this being incorporated in the reconstruction?

Mr. Rippon: We will consider the point raised by my hon. Friend. I have no information about that point in my head at the moment.

Contracts, North-East

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what contracts his Department has placed with North-East firms during 1961 and 1962 up to the latest available date.

Mr. Rippon: During the period 1st January, 1961, to 30th November, 1962, my Ministry has ordered works contracts valued at £1,008,200 to be carried out in the North-East. In addition, it has placed contracts for stores items valued at £483,737 with firms in development districts in the North-East.

Mr. Grey: Is the Minister aware that the orders which have been placed in the North-East have been far from adequate? Is he aware that the more orders his Department and any other Department place in the North-East,


the better will be the opportunities for employment in those industries? Will he take note of the fact that we want more orders from his Department and other Departments?

Mr. Rippon: I take note of what the hon. Member said. There is another Question on the Order Paper about future work.

Birdcage Walk (Lighting)

Mr. Hopkins: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he will improve the street lighting in Birdcage Walk.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharples): We hope to carry out the work in 1964.

Mr. Hopkins: Will this then enable motorists to see their way along this road?

Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir. The new lighting will be considerably brighter and the lamps will be electric.

House of Commons Kitchens (Fume Extraction Plant)

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals are in train for the installation of fume extraction plant in the kitchens of the House of Commons.

Mr. Sharples: All the kitchens in the House of Commons are equipped with fume extraction plant. An improvement in the ventilation hood round the fish fryer in the kitchen serving the North Curtain Cafeteria has been made.

Mr. Webster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an improvement has been noted but that hitherto the Mother of Parliaments has been in need of a deoderant, and that somebody needed to tell her?

Mr. Sharples: Yes.

Emmerson Report

Mr. R. Thompson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Emmerson Report.

Mr. Rippon: The recent changes in the functions of my Ministry will enable the Government to use its powers as client of the construction industries to ensure that the most economical and up-to-date administrative and technical practices are more widely introduced in the public sector.
I announced on 31st October the appointment of a committee to consider contractual procedures in the construction industries and of a working party to inquire into the different systems and practices in the construction industries in Scotland.
Sir Harold Emmerson also stressed the need for an assurance of a steady construction programme for some years ahead. My Ministry's closer association at an earlier stage with the planning of public investment programmes will help to achieve this.

Mr. Thompson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report of an independent inquiry into the construction industries published by the Builder? In view of the important corroborative evidence from that source that much could be done to improve the productivity of the building industry, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to give effect to its recommendations as soon as possible?

Mr. Rippon: I have seen the independent report to which my hon. Friend refers and I have commended it as a useful contribution to the studies which are taking place. I think that the Emmerson Report, as a result of the action taken by my predecessor and my hon. Friend, has also made an important contribution. I intend to ensure that its major recommendations are carried out as speedily as possible.

Industrial Housing

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) how many factories for the manufacture of industrialised houses will be sited in the north-east of England;
(2) if he will give an estimate of the number of jobs created by the production of industrialised houses.

Mr. Rippon: There is a limited amount of production of industrialised housing at present, but it is too early


to forecast either the location of new factories where industrialised housing may be produced or the number of jobs likely to be created.

Mr. Elliott: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he do his best in discussion with his right hon. Friends concerned to encourage as much of this new form of production as practicable to be sited in the north-east of England, which needs new forms of production? Does he agree that the probable large amounts of timber which will be involved in the production of industrialised houses can probably enter the country most easily through our East Coast ports from Scandinavia and that this should help to keep down the eventual end cost of the industrialised house? Does he agree also that this will serve to knock out the long-haul argument which has been so often used in the past in connection with the North-East?

Mr. Rippon: I certainly share my hon. Friend's sense of urgency about this. All these kindred matters are being given a high priority by my Ministry in consultation with other Departments concerned.

Mr. Slater: Can the Minister tell us where this limited industrialised development is taking place in the North-East?

Mr. Rippon: There are a number of Questions later referring specifically to the North-East. This is a general question. All I can say is that in consultation with my colleagues at the Treasury and other Departments we are considering how the additional public investment programme which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced can be channelled to the North-East and similar areas.

Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether and to what extent he has been approached by the Secretary of State for War regarding the speedy production of industrialised houses to satisfactorily solve the housing problem in B.A.O.R., whether he is co-operating, where such industrialised houses will be produced, and, especially in view of the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater), whether this can be done in the North-East?

Mr. Rippon: This is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has answered Questions in the House. We will be concerned through my new Director-General of Research and Development in giving assistance in this way.

Shipyards (Alternative Work)

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on his proposals fax providing alternative work in shipyards.

Mr. Rippon: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said in reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 12th December, I am giving consideration to this possibility.

Mr. Millan: Cannot the Minister be just a little more specific than that? Is he thinking, for example, about this in the context of the building of industrialised houses? Is he aware that, although we would like to see shipyards doing the job for which they were built, namely, building ships, if that cannot be arranged we should be very glad to see the skill and facilities which they have used for other things such as, for example, the building of industrialised houses?

Mr. Rippon: In so far as the shipyards need further outlets for their activities at present, I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport as to how we can best use spare capacity for the preparation of building components and matters of that kind. I have in mind setting up a team which will consider in detail the various types of prefabrication which the shipyards might undertake.

Mr. McInnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman go beyond the stage of consideration and indicate some specific proposal the Government have in mind?

Mr. Rippon: It must be appreciated that this is a new field of activity and there are formidable problems to be solved.

Mr. Rankin: Unemployment is not a new field of inactivity. Would the right hon. Gentleman approach it from that point of view and try, if he appoints this


team, to get it to report much more speedily than some other teams have reported?

Mr. Rippon: That is exactly what we have in mind.

Construction Industries (Economic Intelligence Unit)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to ensure that national demands on the construction industries are co-ordinated and related to the capacity of the industries.

Mr. Rippon: I have set up an Economic Intelligence Unit with the object of providing a first-class service of statistical and economic information about the present and future capacity of the construction industries, and the likely demands on them both nationally and regionally. It will co-operate closely with the Treasury and other Departments, and also maintain close contact with the staff of the National Economic Development Council and with representatives of the construction industries. In this way I hope to contribute towards securing the fullest possible use of the construction industries at all times and in all areas, while avoiding the dangers of overloading them.

Mr. Arbuthnot: While congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I ask him who will be in charge of the Economic Intelligence Unit?

Mr. Rippon: It will be in charge of an assistant secretary in my Department.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the results of its researches be published?

Mr. Rippon: In so far as that proves to be desirable.

Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his colleague the Minister of Education who is now saying that he is unable to consider the capacity in the building industry in laying down the 1964–65 school building programme?

Mr. Rippon: Obviously in preparing the whole of the public investment programme regard must be had to the capacity of the construction industries. That will certainly be borne in mind.

Mr. Mitchison: What could possibly be undesirable about publishing the results if they are of any use?

Mr. Rippon: If they are of any use and if they are documents which ought to be published, we will publish them.

Building Works (Manpower)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works, in view of the unemployment which exists, what plans he has made to utilise more manpower for necessary building works within his responsibility.

Mr. Rippon: I have given instructions that any deferred maintenance and necessary minor works of construction for which I am responsible shall be put in hand as a matter of urgency in the areas concerned.

Sir B. Janner: What exactly are the plans of the Minister? What is he proposing should be done at present in excess of what would be done normally, in view of the large amount of unemployment there is and the sad prospects in the employment market in future? Has he any plans? Has he put them before the Treasury? Has he discussed them with his colleagues? What does he propose to do about the present emergency?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, I have plans; and yes, I have put them before all my colleagues. As the House will appreciate, major new works take some time to plan and therefore cannot make an immediate contribution to the employment problem. What can make a fairly quick contribution is minor works and works of maintenance which can be fed into the construction industry quickly and provide employment, particularly employment for the unskilled people who are largely the cause of difficulty. The House will have seen the statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made yesterday on the subject of minor works and maintenance which can be carried out by local authorities in these areas.

Sir B. Janner: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Telephone Lines, London-Midlands

Mr. Snow: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequate number of telephone lines from London to the Midlands at certain periods during the day; and what plans he has to remedy the situation.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): Yes, Sir, we know that at times there are not enough circuits between London and Birmingham, and we are sorry for the inconvenience this must cause. Additional circuits are, however, being provided during the next few months.

Mr. Snow: Whilst thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask her what is the system for analysing the number of times that the automatic "no lines available" circuit is put into effect?

Miss Pike: I cannot go into detail at the moment as to the exact system, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a very close watch is kept on these lines. All the time we are putting extra circuits into operation, because we are anxious to give the best possible service.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made with the subscriber trunk dialling system throughout the country.

Miss Pike: We have provided 1½ million telephone subscribers with subscriber trunk dialling, representing more than one quarter of the total. We expect that 70 per cent. of all subscribers will have S.T.D. by 1966, and that 90 per cent. will have it by 1970.

Mr. Channon: Can my hon. Friend say whether or not she has found that this has, in the main, proved popular with subscribers or are they finding that their bills are mounting terribly?

Miss Pike: I think that I can assure the House that the subscriber trunk dialling system has proved popular with people. Before they get it they are rather apprehensive, but once they have it and receive their bills they realise that it is very good value.

Mr. Mason: Is not the hon. Lady aware that this is not proving correct and that her Department has been the subject of a great deal of public and Press criticism over S.T.D.? While most of my hon. Friends think that the mechanisation of dialling to this extent is a good thing, should not the Post Office do more to advertise the good points about the introduction of this system, rather than allow so much public criticism to come to the fore against the G.P.O.?

Miss Pike: I think the hon. Member is stressing the criticism that there is in many quarters about the timed local calls and not the advantages of the trunk calls. We are certainly doing everything we can in both respects to ensure that the general public have a system which satisfies them and gives them good value.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General say when she expects a report on the working of S.T.D., as well as on the working of the Post Office, during the past year?

Miss Pike: I cannot give the hon. Member a date at the moment.

Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Lady try to find it out from her right hon. Friend in due course?

Timed Local Calls

Mr. Boardman: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inadequacy of the three minute unit as the basis for local telephone calls and that business calls by domestic subscribers are now proving more expensive, he will increase the time allowed per unit.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I am sorry that I am not at the moment in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. Boardman: Is the Postmaster-General aware that many subscribers think it reasonable that local calls should be timed but that the present basis amounts to extortion? In considering any revision will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at the moment he is perilously near to killing the proverbial goose?

Mr. Bevins: I know the hon. Member's view on this and that it is shared by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. As far as possible, I want to give the public what they want and not what I think they should have. Perhaps I can leave it at that for the moment.

Mr. W. R. Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have a special inquiry made into this matter, because he knows exactly where I stand in regard to my approach to S.T.D.? While there is a growing public feeling that the S.T.D. charges as related to trunk calls are very reasonable, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an inclination for people think that local calls are in a different category, that many people are now being denied the right of reasonable social conversation and that it looks as if the average charge for inland local calls is now about 6d.? That certainly is excessive and will the Postmaster-General look into the Whole situation?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think the final comment made by the hon. Member is quite right. It is the fact that about three-quarters of the local calls on S.T.D. are charged at 2d. at the moment, but that is not to say that there is not a good deal of force in the general contention of the hon. Gentleman, which I shall certainly bear in mind.

Mr. Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of elderly people get a great deal of comfort from using the telephone to talk to their relatives, and that the extra cost is bearing very heavily on them, particularly in Folkestone, and will he give those facts his consideration?

Mr. Bevins: That is one of the factors that is uppermost in my mind.

Rosemary Lane Area, Blackwater

Sir E. Errington: asked the Postmaster-General why it is stated to be impossible for residents to obtain telephone service in the Rosemary Lane area of Blackwater, near Camberley, before 1964; and whether he will accelerate the provision of this service in view of its importance to business and other telephone users.

Miss Pike: I am sorry that it is not possible to give telephone service to wait-

ing applicants in the Rosemary Lane area until more cables have been laid. This work will take some months to complete and cannot be accelerated because of the many urgent commitments which the telephone manager has on hand.

Sir E. Errington: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is an area of very substantial development, and that the reason why these lines cannot be laid is because the county council has not decided on the road which it wants to construct in this district? Is it not possible for the Post Office to make arrangements which are not to be dependent on decisions of that character, and does not the Department look forward, in a case where a large number of houses is being built, to putting in the lines within a reasonable time?

Miss Pike: The position about this is that the county council did take some time to decide on the extension of its roads. That has now been agreed, the ducts are being laid and a start on laying the cable will be made in the spring of 1963.

Sir E. Errington: When will it be completed?

Miss Pike: A great many of the subscribers in two of the housing estates served by Rosemary Lane will not be getting their telephone service until the end of 1963, when the cable will be laid, or the beginning of 1964.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Special Stamps

Mr. Oram: asked the Postmaster-General why the United Kingdom is not participating in the world-wide issue of Freedom from Hunger stamps.

Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend has now decided that we should issue two special stamps on 21st March to mark the Freedom from Hunger campaign.

Mr. Oram: Will the hon. Lady accept my appreciation—and, I am sure, that of the whole House—of this belated but very welcome acceptance of this idea? Is it not the case that the vast majority of nations had already decided to do it, and would it not have been deplorable had we continued to he one of a misguided minority?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General make sure that these new stamps are, in fact, better than the last lot which came out? Some of us did not think much of those and they certainly did not do much for the philately trade in this country.

Miss Pike: We try to keep to the newest and best possible designs. We cannot please everyone all the time, but we believe in having as many innovations as possible because, we believe, that is the right line to take.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Now that the Post Office is adopting a more enlightened attitude towards stamps and designs, can we hope for stamps to commemorate Robert Burns and William Shakespeare?

Mr. Speaker: That is too far from Freedom from Hunger. Mr. Ridley.

High Radio Towers

Mr. Ridley: asked the Postmaster-General how many of the new series of Post Office radio stations, with high steel or concrete towers, he proposes to erect; and how many of these are either completed or in process of erection.

Mr. Bevins: Twenty-one radio masts or towers more than 200 feet in height have been completed or are being built, and a further 15 are planned.

Mr. Ridley: Would my right hon. Friend publish details of his plans for this series of towers, stating where they are all to go? Will he take particular care to consult all the local and amenity bodies concerned because of the danger of these towers spoiling some of the loveliest parts of England? Will they be erected on top of hills and will the Postmaster-General ensure that he takes the public with him and publishes the full scheme behind these plans?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. I am perfectly willing to give my hon. Friend the details of these particular schemes but, meanwhile, I can say clearly that the amenity bodies are always consulted where their interests are affected and, of course, the planning bodies are brought into the picture too.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Postmaster-General what is the precise function of the chain of high radio towers recently constructed or planned; and

what considerations determine the siting of these towers.

Mr. Bevins: The chain of high radio towers is part of a system of radio relay stations which has been under construction since 1949. It is required for the provision of telecommunications services by radio, and may also carry television signals between stations of the broadcasting authorities.
The towers must be sited not more than about 40 miles apart and in such positions that those towers communicating with each other have an uninterrupted "line of sight" between them.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Postmaster-General aware that his Department always manages to light with unerring accuracy on sites of great natural beauty with these 300 ft. concrete towers? Is this really necessary? Can he assure the House that the 36 under construction and planned, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his previous Answer, represent the limit, or is he going to pepper the countryside with these towers?

Mr. Bevins: Regarding the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, as I said in reply to my hon. Friend, there are 21 under construction now and a further 15 planned. There are no further under contemplation at the moment. One reason—and I understand the hon. Member's apprehensions here—why these towers tend to offend those of us who are interested in amenity is that they have to be sited on high ground. Having said that, I can assure the hon. Member that we do wherever possible situate them on high ground which is not offensive to amenity.

Mr. Ridley: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these towers have anything to do with defence and, if so, will he check to see that they are not already obsolete?

Mr. Bevins: It is the case that some of these masts and towers are essential for defence communications in time of emergency.

Post Office Act, 1953 (Section 11)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Postmaster-General whether in the exercise of his powers under Section 11 of the


Post Office Act, 1953, he will instruct his Department to refuse to deliver postcards issued by a debt-collecting agency in Cardiff, the name of which has been sent to him, in view of the fact that these are libellous in character.

Miss Pike: The Post Office is not in a position to decide whether or not the words on the cards in question are libellous: and my right hon. Friend cannot agree to do as the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that the writing of postcards, of which I think I sent her Department a copy, sent by the Cardiff Department Retail Bureau Ltd. is causing offence to the postmen who have to hand them over to the people and that it is a thoroughly offensive business for postmen to have to act as debt collectors under these conditions? Will her Department look again at this offensive custom which some business firms are using, for they are relying on the Post Office to do their work?

Miss Pike: I can assure the hon. Member that we will watch this matter very carefully but, at the moment, we do not feel able to do anything more definite about it.

Express Letters (Delivery, Blackburn)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that two express letters addressed to the Town Clerk of Blackburn and to Mr. Roy Martin of Blackburn were posted at the House of Commons post office at 9.5 p.m. on Tuesday, 13th November, that they caught the 11.55 p.m. night mail from Euston, were off-loaded at Crewe at 5.46 a.m. on 14th November, forwarded to Blackburn at 8 p.m. that night and delivered by first post on 15th November; and whether he will consult the Railways Board with a view to ensuring that more adequate train facilities are made available for the Royal Mail in order to prevent such delays in future.

Miss Pike: I am afraid the circumstances were not as previously described to the hon. Lady. The letters should have been delivered on the morning of 14th November. They failed because

the mail van which took them to Euston was delayed and missed the train. I am sorry about this, and very much regret the inconvenience caused.

Mrs. Castle: I am very grateful to the Postmaster at the House of Commons for the prompt inquiries he made into this delay and also for the anxiety he has always shown to give an efficient service to hon. Members. Is the hon. Lady aware that I have received a number of complaints from my constituency about the slowness of the postal service to the North? Does not her reply show that the facilities for the Royal Mail at Euston should be improved to enable any delays in transit to be rectified and for trains not to be missed? Does she agree that there is need for more through mail trains to Preston and the surrounding areas like Blackburn?

Miss Pike: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words about the Postmaster here, which we all endorse. I can assure her that we are looking at conditions at Euston at the moment. There are difficulties there because of the modernisation that is going on, but we believe that things will be better when the new station is open. However, we will look into her point about the through mail service.

Research Station (Site)

Mr. Slater: asked the Postmaster-General what inquiries he has made of the North-East England Development Council about a possible sire for a Post Office Engineering Research Organisation.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to investigate the possibilities of sites in Scotland for a Post Office Engineering Research Organisation.

Mr. Hoy: asked the Postmaster-General if he will undertake, in consultation with his Government colleagues, to site the Post Office Engineering Research Laboratory in an area of high unemployment.

Miss Pike: I recognise the special claims to Scotland and the North-East and the areas of high unemployment generally, but I regret that working requirements make it necessary to


envisage a location nearer to London for the Post Office Research Station.

Mr. Slater: Will not the hon. Lady agree that by setting up such an organisation, she would assist in giving opportunities to many of our young people who would like to be graded for this type of work? Is she further aware that, at the moment, we have 5,386 young people unemployed in the North-East, an increase of over 3,000 since 1st November? Does she not think that her Department, along with other Government Departments, ought to be concerned very greatly indeed in combating this scourge of unemployment in the North-East as soon as possible?

Miss Pike: I recognise the unemployment figures which the hon. Member gave, but I would remind him that my Department has already directed the Savings Certificate Division to Durham. We are very conscious of the needs of the North-East and of Scotland.

Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the Post Office could do a very valuable job for the nation if it were to lead the way in ensuring that these research departments were not all concentrated in the South and South-East? Would not the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend on this occasion look closely into this matter to see if some other part of the country, other than these crowded areas, could benefit through the Post Office having these research stations installed?

Miss Pike: We recognise the desirability of moving away, but the difficulty is that we must keep our research department and our development department very closely integrated. Our developments are current developments, and, for that reason, it is essential to have our research department in very close touch with the headquarters staff.

Dr. Bray: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that the convenience of the working arrangements to which she has referred would attract other institutions and institutions and industries to Scotland and the North-East if she would move the engineering research station there?

Miss Pike: As a Yorkshirewoman, I need very little attracting to the North-East.

Research Station, Dollis Hill

Mr. Millan: asked the Postmaster-General how many scientists, skilled technicians, semi-skilled technicians, and unskilled men and women are employed at the Post Office Engineering Laboratory at Dollis Hill; and how many of these are on the permanent staff of his Department.

Miss Pike: The staff of the Dollis Hill Research Station numbers 1,306, of whom 1,075 are established staff.
Post Office gradings do not readily fit the categories listed in the Question; but I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an analysis which will, I hope, meet the hon. Member's needs.

Mr. Millan: Is it not clear from that Answer that this is a very large research establishment, and just the kind of thing we want in Scotland or in other development areas? Is the hon. Lady aware that the argument of administrative inconvenience is precisely the argument used by private industry? If the Government will not set an example, how can they possibly expect private industry to co-operate with them in their distribution of industry policy?

Miss Pike: I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add to my Answer to the previous Question.

Following is the analysis:


—
Total
Established Staff


Directing Staff
3
3


Scientific Officer Class
57
49


Assistants (Scientific)
52
18


Experimental Officer Class
92
86


Professional Engineering Grades
166
159


Assistant Engineers
145
145


Drawing Office Staff
76
70


Technical Officers
255
255


Technicians
205
174


Youths-in-Training
45
0


Assistant Telephone Mechanics
43
13


Executive, Clerical, Typing, etc. Staff
92
55


Others
75
48



1,306
1,075

Mr. Ross: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the Post Office Advisory Council on the removal of the research laboratory from Dollis Hill.

Miss Pike: None. Sir.

Mr. Ross: But would it not have been a good idea to have had a discussion with the Advisory Council, which is a cross-section of persons all over the country, to see whether or not the best possible site for the new laboratory was where the Minister intends to have it? Does she not think that it would have been far better to have had that very thin argument of hers looked at by these business men and representative persons, because it just does not work?

Miss Pike: This, of course, is a matter of internal organisation, and it has never been customary to discuss this with the Advisory Council. But I would add that it is not the business people whom we wish to be near. We wish to keep our research staff and development staff close together, and that is the necessity for having our research station near our headquarters.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Whilst I would not, perhaps, go all the way with my hon. Friends in regard to the transfer to which reference has been made, is it not clear from the many Questions to the hon. Lady and to her right hon. Friend on the Order Paper today, that many of us on this side feel that the Post Office can take some very effective steps, during these critical days in some of the depressed areas, by making quite sure that the experimental work at Dollis Hill is distributed more evenly—in Scotland, the North-East and in other parts—instead of being concentrated in some of the more progressive and prosperous areas, as it is now? I cannot subscribe to some of the suggestions made, but I feel that the Post Office can do very much more effective work than it is doing at present.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady has said that this is not the kind of thing that this Council would discuss. Can she tell me what kind of thing it would discuss; and how often it has met since the right hon. Gentleman became Postmaster-General?

Miss Pike: The sort of things we discuss are the sort of policy issues which concern the customer, in particular. I am afraid that, offhand, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the number of times it has met since my right hon. Friend was appointed to his present position.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

B.B.C. Wavelength, North-East

Mr. Grey: asked the Postmaster-General when the British Broadcasting Corporation expects to make the necessary change so that a wavelength can be made available exclusively for the North-East.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. tells me that the new arrangements will start on Monday, 7th January.

Mr. Grey: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that this has been a long campaign, and that the decision to have our own wavelength makes complete nonsense of the 14 years we have been told time and again that it was impossible to have our own wavelength? May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the decision to have our own wavelength has been widely accepted in the North-East, where people now want to know if they can be compensated for all this inconvenience by being in the first area to have coloured television?

Mr. Bevins: Of course, there has been no delay on the part of the Post Office or the B.B.C. This new wavelength became available through a rearrangement of wavelengths for the B.B.C.'s external services, following upon the decision to close down a transmitter in West Germany.

Mr. Marsh: Is there any reason why this wavelength should not be used for at least part of the time for an experiment in local broadcasting in the North-East to give people the opportunity of saying whether they like it or do not like it?

Mr. Bevins: I think it is more important to do what we have decided to do.

Licences

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the outcome of investigations by the Joint Working Party of the Post Office and British Broadcasting Corporation into licence evasion for radio and television sets; what is the estimated loss of potential annual revenue to the British Broadcasting Corporation and Treasury; and what remedial measures he now proposes for 1963.

Mr. Bevins: The working party has agreed that the most effective answer to licence evasion is a system of inquiry of individual households, conducted by post, followed up as necessary by personal inquiry, and backed by publicity. I have stepped up the scale of these inquiries, and they will be maintained at a high level during 1963. No reliable estimate can be given of the loss of revenue; but it is continually being reduced.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster-General how many radio and television licences are currently in issue; what are the annual aggregate receipts compared respectively with five and ten years ago; what steps he is taking to prevent licence evasion with car radios; and what consideration he is giving to associating the car radio annual licence with the motor-taxation licence procedure to diminish the extent of evasion and loss of revenue.

Mr. Bevins: At the end of October, 1962, there were just under 3½ million radio licences and nearly 12¼ million television licences in force; annual aggregate receipts (excluding television duty) for the respective financial years were: £14 million for 1951–52; £28 million for 1956–57; and £39 million for 1961–62.
Inquiries about car radios are made as part of the general wireless licence inquiry procedure, and the need for a separate licence is widely publicised.
The suggestion contained in the last part of my hon. Friend's Question has been examined in the past and turned down, partly for administrative reasons, and partly because of the work it would put on local taxation officers. I can, however, see the attraction in this suggestion from the angle of reducing evasion, and I am looking at it afresh.

Mr. Nabarro: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive Answers to both these Questions, may I ask whether he would agree that this is a very unsavoury state of affairs today, when several millions of revenue are being lost every year by the evasion of payment of the licence, most largely for radio, and to a lesser extent for television? Would he not agree that the spread in the use of car radio sets itself is a sufficient justification for looking afresh at the system by which the licence fee is paid? Is it not a fact that it is administratively very easy to attach the payment of these radio licences to the registration book for the motor car and, by a distinctive disc on car windscreens, put an end to this wholly odious form of evasion of payment?

Mr. Bevins: I well understand what my hon. Friend has in mind, and I will certainly do all I can, but, in fairness, I must tell the House that one of the obstacles here is that the Ministry of Transport at present has no legal power to compel local taxation offices to do this sort of work, but it does not exclude the possibility of doing it by agreement.

Sir J. Duncan: Would my right hon. Friend refuse to add anything to the front ends of motor cars, because one car which I have noticed has got far too much on it already?

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Though I am not dissatisfied with that Answer, none the less I should like to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible. It is not my car—it is the licences.

Anglia Television (Advertisement)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the prohibition by Anglia Television of an advertisement for a series of articles in the Sunday Citizen entitled, "The Rotten Reich"; and if he will consult the Independent Television Authority under Section 4 of the Television Act 1954, with a view to clarifying the rules which govern advertisements which may be considered political.

Mr. Bevins: The I.T.A. tells me that the advertisement to which the hon. Member refers was refused by Anglia Television Ltd., after consultation with


the I.T.A., as being unacceptable in the light of Section 3 (1, a) of the Television Act. The latter part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Section to which the Postmaster-General refers provide for the advertiser whose announcement have been banned being given the reasons for the action taken? As, in this particular instance, there has been a complete black-out by the joint censorship committee of the British Poster Advertising Association, is it not imperative that the Government should keep at least this line of communication open so that the banning of advertisements will not be imposed by purely private means?

Mr. Bevins: The attitude of the Poster Association has nothing to do with me or with the Post Office, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the third advertisement offered to Anglia Television by the Sunday Citizen drew attention to an article which was entitled, "The Blue Angels of Frankfurt", which dealt with prostitution in Germany. Both Anglia Television and the I.T.A. regarded this as offensive to good taste under Section 3 (1, a), and refused, I think rightly, to accept it.

Mr. Farr: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in general, it is not desirable to have matters of a political nature advertised on television?

Mr. Bevins: That, with respect to my hon. Friend, is a much more highly controversial slant to the question, but the fact is that this particular advertisement was refused, not on political grounds but because it offended good taste.

Mr. Hynd: Would not the Postmaster-General consider that one of the best ways of dealing with this situation would be for the Government to give time for the introduction of a Bill preventing the dissemination of racial hatred?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions to Ministers responsible for Departments of Her Majesty's Government that contracts shall not be given to firms which

disallow trade union membership among their employees.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
In accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution passed by this House on 14th October, 1946, the Standard Conditions for Government Contracts contain a Clause providing that
… the contractor shall recognise the freedom of his work people to be members of trade unions
If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will raise it with the Minister concerned.

Mr. Brockway: Is the First Secretary aware that I have already done so? Is he aware that this firm has contracts with most of the Government Departments and with most of the nationalised industries; that its managing director called the staff together at its Slough depot, presented them with a statement withdrawing from the trade union, and asked them to sign it; that when seven members of the staff refused to sign the statement they were instantly dismissed; that the managing director refused to see the industrial relations officer of the Ministry of Labour; that it was only after this Question was put on the Order Paper a month ago that the Minister of Labour intervened, and that, subsequently, the firm has said that it will allow trade union membership? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this promise is carried out in practice as well as in letter; and that the seven dismissed men have the opportunity of reinstatement?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I think that the hon. Member has expressed almost exactly the situation that arose in this firm. Officers representing my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour visited the firm, and I understand that the company has given an assurance that all its employees are free to join any trade union they wish. I hope that the hon. Member will keep in touch with my right hon. Friend and, in view of his request, I will also do so.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the First Secretary bear in mind that freedom to join a trade union is not of much use if the firm concerned then also says, "We are


not willing to negotiate terms and conditions"? I understand that that is what this company was saying. Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to make clear to the firm that any question of freedom to join a trade union must also involve willingness on the part of the firm to negotiate on salaries, terms and conditions?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour with a view to contact with the firm.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (TALKS)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister whether, in his talks with General de Gaulle, he raised the possibility of co-ordinated aid from France and the United Kingdom to developing countries, produced from under-utilised resources from areas such as North-East England, Merseyside, Scotland, and South-West France.

Mr. Morris: asked the Prime Minister whether, in his talks with General de Gaulle, he discussed aid to developing countries, in particular goods which are produced from under-utilised resources in areas such as parts of Wales, North-East England, Merseyside, Scotland, and Brittany.

Mr. Reynolds: asked the Prime Minister whether, in his talks with General de Gaulle, he raised the possibility of co-ordinated aid from France and Great Britain to developing countries; and whether, in the light of the need to arrest housing congestion in conurbations such as London and Paris, such aid could be found from under-utilised resources in areas such as Merseyside, Northern Ireland, Tees-side, Scotland and South-West France.

Dr. Bray: asked the Prime Minister whether, during his visit to General de Gaulle, he discussed the proposals, made in the European Economic Community Commission memorandum, "The Action Programme for the Second Stage", for planning aid to underdeveloped countries, particularly in view of the underemployment of capital goods industries in this and other European countries.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer hon. Members to the communiqué in Paris and in London after my right hon. Friend's talks with General de Gaulle.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the Government propose to take seriously their promise of aid from under-utilised resources from these areas in Britain to developing countries?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. An instance of our seriousness was given in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night—[Interruption.]—when he referred to this matter in some detail, and referred to the possible sum of £10 million as a possible additional aid to industries that have spare capacity. I think that my right hon. Friend very rightly said that it might well give hope to industries with spare capacity.

Dr. Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that sum of £10 million represents only about four months' employment of the surplus capacity in the steel and engineering industries on Tees-side alone and that it is derisory in relation to both the needs of under-developed countries and the capacities of the capital goods industry of this country?

Mr. Butler: It is not at all derisory and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, we must see what countries are willing to accept these goods and what goods there are in surplus capacity and then we must make a start with the sum of money suggested.

Mr. Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are underdeveloped resources in this country and that there is continued and rising unemployment with which the Government seem unable to cope? Surely the Common Market countries are to be outward-looking as opposed to being a rich men's club, and should not top priority be given to discussions of this nature?

Mr. Butler: Hitherto the questions have related to developing countries overseas, but there is machinery for consultation about aid policy in Europe. In particular this is done through the


Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D. of which we and France are members. That would be the machinery through which this would be considered.

Mr. Reynolds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while he says that this was referred to in some detail by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the details take up only about half a column of HANSARD and that all that the Chancellor said was that we were looking at the possibilities? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more detail than that? What effort is being made at present by the Departments to find out exactly what surplus capacity there is, and what instructions have been sent to embassies or other organisations overseas to see what aid is required? We want more than just looking at the possibilities.

Mr. Butler: This was referred to in a short paragraph by my right hon. Friend, but nevertheless it is very important and I will undertake to discuss with my right hon. Friend the further pursuit of this matter.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind and convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unrequited exports on an unlimited scale, which is what the Opposition are asking for, make no contribution whatsoever to a prosperous and soundly based economy in Britain?

Mr. Butler: We have always to watch unrequited exports, but at the same time I think that there is great value in the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend.

UNEMPLOYMENT, NORTHERN IRELAND

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Prime Minister (1) what steps he has taken to improve the co-operation between the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government, in view of the urgency of the need to solve Northern Ireland's unemployment problems;
(2) if he will arrange a meeting with the Northern Ireland Prime Minister to discuss further methods of solving the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Ministers and officials of the two Governments, including my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, work in close cooperation at all times, and no formal arrangements for consultation are needed.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my right hon. Friend fully aware that in Northern Ireland there is great concern at the moment that perhaps not every stone is left unturned to find an answer to the long-term problem of unemployment? Especially in view of the statement made last night by the Minister of Labour about special requirements to solve this problem, may I ask whether means will be taken to call special meetings and if necessary a long-term committee to solve this problem as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler: Mr. Andrews, the Minister of Commerce and the Minister of Finance were here as recently as 10th and 11th December. Prior to that we had a debate on the Hall Report—the Report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland—on 22nd November and my hon. Friend may realise and feel that we have this matter continually yin mind.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the First Secretary whether the National Economic Development Council takes into account the position in Northern Ireland in considering its future plans?

Mr. Butler: That I shall investigate in company with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shinwell: Did the right hon. Gentleman observe that last night several hon. Members from north-eastern constituencies decided not to vote for the Government's Motion? If same of the Ulster Members adopted the same policy, would that make any change in the Government's attitude towards Northern Ireland?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a reply to a Written Question on 13th December by the Home Secretary in which he states that the


majority of public works are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government? Is my right hon. Friend taking this into account when he mentions the Hall Committee's Report in which the development of public works was not recommended and yet would appear to be a satisfactory start in this effort?

Mr. Butler: I have my right hon. Friend's reply before me and can only endorse what he says.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night the Minister of Labour deliberately excluded Northern Ireland from the areas in regard to which special action would be taken? Will he, therefore, take into account that what is required for Northern Ireland is not more meetings and more consultations but a policy, and will he reconsider what the Minister of Labour said last night?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that I can necessarily take that as an interpretation of my right hon. Friend's words. What I know is that Northern Ireland is constantly in our minds and we are perpetually taking steps to deal with it.

PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (SPEECH)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the President of the Board of Trade to the Putney Conservative Association on 8th December on the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of this welcome recognition that it is not essential for Britain to join the E.E.C. and accept the humiliating terms which are being suggested by the Six, may I ask what is now being done to work out the alternatives in terms of overseas trade, particularly with the E.F.T.A. countries and our Commonwealth friends?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept the inference which the hon. Member brings to bear on the speech of my right hon. Friend. The position remains exactly as before. We are clear that we want to

accede. We are equally clear that we want to get the right terms and conditions on which we can honourably accede. That is the position today and that remains the position.

Mr. Marsh: Is it not impossible for the country to get the right terms as long as it appears that there is no alternative and the Government are not attempting to find an alternative?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member can rely on the ingenuity and wisdom of the Government in having plans for all contingencies.

PAKISTAN

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with President Ayub Khan on the future rôle of Pakistan in the Central Treaty Organisation and in the South East Asia Treaty Organisation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Any consultations which my right hon. Friend might have with President Ayub Khan on these matters would be confidential.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, a few days before this Question was tabled, the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan stated that if necessary his Government were prepared to dissociate themselves from pacts with the West and obviously these were the two that were referred to? If they did so, would it be such a bad thing in view of the fact that a problem such as Kashmir is irritated by Pakistan's membership of these two Treaty bodies in the eyes of India, because she has no connection and it leads to trouble on the Indian frontier?

Mr. Butler: Pakistani Ministers have stated that Pakistan will honour her international commitments. I would only refer the hon. Member to the statement issued after my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary had discussions in Pakistan, to which I cannot add.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that that supplementary question is both mischievous and irrelevant and that recent events on the Indian sub-continent have proved the


value of Pakistan's association with the West and the sad results that can happen to those countries which do not take a definite line of alignment with the West in what happens in the world?

Mr. Butler: It would be impossible to overrate the importance of Pakistan's alliances with the West.

Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Ayub Khan is a great friend of England and that the troubles that have happened in Kashmir have been going on for a long time and have to be resolved some time? Is he aware that Pakistan is not playing with Communist tigers but is a friend of Britain and that it would be better if the Indians settled the Kashmir problem so that there could be a general defence of the Northern frontier against Communism?

Mr. Butler: I am sure that the whole House will endorse the hon. Member's observations about the importance of a settlement or at least an understanding about the Kashmir problem.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR, WASHINGTON (STATEMENT)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement of Sir David Ormsby-Gore, the British Ambassador in Washington, that the recent speech of Mr. Dean Acheson on the conduct of British foreign policy was much in line with the existing policy of the British Government, was made with his authority.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The Ambassador's impromptu remarks were made in reply to journalists as he was leaving the State Department after an interview with Mr. Rusk. According to my information, they do not altogether bear the interpretation apparently put upon them by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the First Secretary realise that a great deal of confusion has been caused by the varying reactions of the British Ambassador and the Prime Minister to the speech by Mr. Dean Acheson? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to give us his own reaction?

Mr. Butler: My own reaction is the same as that given by the Prime Minister in reply to Lord Chandos in a letter which was published and universally supported.

Mr. Grimond: In spite of his last reply, will the First Secretary agree that the impromptu remarks of the Ambassador were a good deal more sensible than the carefully thought-out remarks of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: I think that these remarks should be read together.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SERVICE CANDIDATES)

The Secretary of State For the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the problem of members of the Armed Forces seeking to obtain a discharge from the Services upon the ground that they wish to stand for Parliament.
At any moment there are bound to be a number of Service men who have openings in civil life offered to them and would prefer not to have to wait for their period of service to expire, and, in the case of other ranks, not to have to find the cash necessary to buy their discharge. For these, the convention by which would-be parliamentary candidates are given an immediate free discharge provides a unique means of release, even though, when the time comes, the applicant need not even pay his deposit or offer himself for election.
Knowledge that this is the situation resulted at recent by-elections in a number of Service men obtaining their release and some actually standing as candidates, and has now resulted in many applications for nomination forms at Rotherham and Colne Valley. There is clearly a real danger of bringing our system of parliamentary elections into disrepute, and of an undesirable abuse growing in the Services.
It is because there is no solution to this problem that is completely satisfactory that the Government have not been able to take action sooner. Parliament might, of course, be invited to legislate so that the Services might release members of the Armed Forces


on leave to fight by-elections, and then have the right to recall them. This was broadly the arrangement which existed during and just after the last war; but the situation then was very different.
I do not say that to reintroduce this system would be definitely wrong, but the House will probably agree that we should think carefully before we commit ourselves to the view that men in a public service can leave that public service to fight elections, and then return to it when the election is over.
An alternative approach is to say that applications by members of the Armed Forces to leave the Service in order to contest parliamentary elections would be treated in exactly the same way as applications to leave on any other non-compassionate ground. This would mean that a stated intention to contest an election would no longer be accepted as a reason for discharge in a case where an application for discharge on other grounds would have been refused; nor would such an application be regarded as a ground for free discharge if discharge by purchase would otherwise have been appropriate.
There are drawbacks and difficulties in all the possible courses, and all of them seem to the Government to touch upon important issues affecting the interests of Parliament and the rights of public servants.
In the circumstances, the Government propose that we deal with this difficult problem as follows. For the immediate future we would adopt what I might call the administrative approach which I have outlined above. At the same time, we propose that a Select Committee of the House of Commons be appointed to study the whole problem and to report to the House whether or not members of the Armed Forces should continue to be treated as they are today, and whether, if any alterations are proposed, these would have repercussions in any other categories of the public service.
We would be happy to discuss through the usual channels the precise terms of reference of the Select Committee, and then to table the requisite Motion forthwith.

Mr. G. Brown: We on this side are quite willing to accept the proposal to set up a Select Committee and, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to discuss the terms of reference and help as far as we can, but there are certain questions, in connection with what he calls the administrative approach in the meantime, which should be answered.
Will the Home Secretary make perfectly plain that his words, which were, I thought, a little ambiguous, will not be used in such a way that any geniune candidate will have it made more difficult for him than it now is to stand for Parliament? Further, will he assure us that there will be absolute equality of opportunity in this matter between other ranks and commissioned officers?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman find an opportunity to consider the fact that so many people want to get out of the Services while, as far as I can see, none of them wants to stand in support of the Government?

Mr. Brooke: It is the desire of all of us that no genuine would-be candidate shall be prevented from standing. At the same time, I am sure that the House will recognise that it is virtually impossible for a Service Department as such to distinguish between the genuine and the not so genuine candidate because it has no test of the bona fides of an applicant which it can apply. I think that this is an aspect of the matter to which the Select Committee might give immediate attention with a view, perhaps, to presenting an interim report to the House.
There will be absolute equality of opportunity as between officers and other ranks in the sense that each of them will have to fulfil the rules ordinarily applicable to their circumstances.

Mr. Brown: I realise that, once the Select Committee gets to work, we can allocate priorities and, perhaps, have an interim report, but we have two by-elections pending which may come up before we reach that stage. It is important, therefore, to have the position clear in the meantime. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about a Service Department not being able to distinguish, but should not we have a rule-of-thumb method for the time being which means that, if a man fulfils


the ordinary requirements for nomination—that is, that he has his form completed in accordance with the requirements of the law and puts down his deposit—he ought to be assumed to be a genuine candidate.

Mr. Brooke: With respect, I do not think that that really solves the problem, because one would then have to allow anybody to stand for Parliament. I do not think that any Service Department or I or anybody else could seek to discriminate between the genuineness of the motives of one would-be candidate and another.
It is intended, if possible, to set up the Select Committee before the Recess, and the Select Committee could, if it wished, sit during the Recess.

Mr. Grimond: The Home Secretary has left the House in some difficulty. Is it intended that this procedure shall apply to those who have already put in their names for candidature in the by-elections which are pending? Is it to apply to them?

Mr. Brooke: indicated assent.

Mr. Grimond: If so, I am at a loss to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by the procedure to which he referred. He says that Service Departments cannot distinguish between the genuine and the bogus candidate. If he rejects the test of putting down the deposit, what is the test to be? The Select Committee may not report for three or four weeks. These people will be left in doubt for, perhaps, as much as a month or two as to whether they are candidates or not. Further, if it does come to decision by the military, will the decision be made by the commanding officer, and, if so, is there to be any appeal?

Mr. Brooke: As regards the immediate by-elections, a number of applications have been received but release has not been authorised in any case, and what we have to consider is how we are to hold the position until there has been opportunity for the Select Committee, on behalf of the House, to examine what is the least difficult solution. As far as I can see, it is quite impossible to distinguish between the genuineness of one applicant and another, nor do we really

solve the problem by requiring people to put down £150 because, even so, that would make it easier for them to get out of the Services by the back door than it would otherwise be.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better have an hon. Member from the other side of the House first.

Mr. Berkeley: Since my right hon. Friend says that it is virtually impossible for Service Departments to distinguish between the genuineness or otherwise of an application, will he explain exactly what is meant by the "administrative approach" which will be applied in the interim period? I am bound to say that I am completely puzzled by this. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that many of us feel that it is infinitely more desirable to place no restriction on the right of anybody to stand for Parliament and to return to the system which appeared to work perfectly satisfactorily during and after the war whereby people were quite free to stand, and returned to their units if they were not elected.

Mr. Brooke: There is a difference between war-time and peace-time. The House must contemplate the possibility of somebody coming out of the Services to fight an election, expressing strong and perhaps bitter views about the Service in which he has been, and then returning to it afterwards. That was a situation which did not arise during the war, partly because there was a Coalition Government and party politics were suspended.
In answer to the question of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) as to the level at which these decisions would be taken, in the Navy it would be, for officers, the Civil Lord and, for ratings, the Second Sea Lord; in the Royal Air Force, for officers it would be the Air Secretary and for airmen the Air Officer Commanding, R.A.F. Records; and there would be a somewhat similar arrangement in the Army.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). My concentration had momentarily broken down, otherwise I


should have allowed him to ask a supplementary question on that part of his question which had not been answered.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) and myself are the only two Members of the House today who were Regular soldiers and who came out on extended release to fight the 1945 election on the understanding that if we failed in that election we would go back in the Army? Is he further aware that to set up a Select Committee on this matter is taking a bulldozer to crack a nut? Will he consider the possibility of reintroducing only that part of the war-time legislation which permitted serving soldiers or any other member of the Armed Forces to stand for election on extended release and to return to the Services if they were unsuccessful in the election?

Mr. Brooke: The Government have given a great deal of thought to this, and we see a number of disadvantages in the course which my hon. Friend has just suggested. In any event, such a course would require legislation and there is clearly no possibility of passing immediate legislation, which would inevitably be of a controversial character because of its difficulties, in advance of the next two by-elections. We must, therefore, face the immediate situation and have some holding-over arrangement until it is possible, with the help of the Select Committee, we hope, to work out a long-term solution.

Mr. Wigg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very complex subject, not capable of easy solution? He has gone 90 per cent. of the way towards putting this matter right—that is, he is referring to a Select Committee the long-term difficulties which will take into account the facts as they are likely to develop. The problem surely is what he will do in the short run. Is it not a fact that he has failed to grasp the nettle?
By taking administrative action to meet the administrative difficulties of the Government, which are of their own creation, the right hon. Gentleman is breaching a very important principle, which is that a Regular soldier is

always a citizen. He is doing that in the long-term interests of the Armed Forces and of Parliament. Why does not he say so and then say that by administrative action he is going to impose on all serving soldiers, irrespective of rank, the same limitation which the Secretary of State for War imposed in the Army Reserve Act, namely, that he will not recognise any change of occupation except in extreme compassionate circumstances under a period of six months? That would be a straightforward thing to do and would get the House out of difficulty while the Select Committee grappled with this problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) put his finger on the point when he said that we are in grave danger of drawing a distinction between officers and other ranks. Other ranks can apply and have to put down a fair sum, but officers do not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no power to allow speeches. This is the time for asking questions arising from the Home Secretary's statement.

Mr. Wigg: This is a very involved question, Mr. Speaker. If it turns out to be a long series of questions, I cannot help it.
May I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it was not a member of the other ranks who took the first step, but an officer of the 16th Lancers? The right hon. Gentleman must be most careful not to draw this distinction between officers and other ranks. If the right hon. Gentleman will go a little further, the steps which he has proposed will have my backing. Will he make sure that the terms of reference of the Select Committee enable it to take into account how these circumstances arose and that it does not become a whitewashing operation to meet the convenience of the Government?

Mr. Brooke: I have already said that we should wish to discuss the terms of reference of the Select Committee through the usual channels in order to obtain a generally acceptable form of words. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in speaking of the great complexities of this problem. He suggests that there might be an absolute bar for a period on anybody being let out of the Services to fight an election.


The reason why the Government thought that that would not be a proper course was that we should then be putting potential candidates at elections in a worse position than other Service men who seek discharge because they would not be up against a similar barrier. That was why we did not adopt the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. G. Brown: It seems to me that the problem before the House is the interim period. We can agree on what happens after. We do not want to do anything in the interim period which is unfair. If we make the putting down of the deposit and the filling up of the nomination form in the appropriate way the test, a number will still get through the net—for example, some might withdraw after that—but it would reduce the problem to smaller proportions. On the other hand, by making this the test we would be standing on the existing law until we have the Select Committee's recommendations to encourage us to change it. Would it not be better to settle for that, thereby reducing the problem to reasonable proportions, and avoid some of the other complications involved in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion?

Mr. Brooke: I am not absolutely sure that it would reduce it to reasonable proportions. Thirteen men have been released from the Services to fight by-elections and 10 of them have stood as candidates. I am not criticising that, but pointing it out. The paying of the deposit is not a bar to people using this method of coming out of the Services.
The difficulty that I see in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that until the man is out of the Service he cannot sign the form of consent to be nominated because the law prevents him from doing that. We should have to alter the law if we were to seek a solution on those lines. That might be one of the things that the Select Committee should consider, but we must find a short-term solution for the problem which does not involve altering the law.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There really is a problem here and no Question before us.

TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY (WITNESSES' EXPENSES)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the expenses of witnesses appearing before the Tribunal set up to consider the Vassall case.
In the course of answering Questions on this subject on 29th November I promised to bring to the notice of the Tribunal all that was said that day in the House. I have done this, and I am glad to be able now to report to the House that the Chairman and members of the Tribunal have been good enough to agree to undertake responsibility for advising in what cases justice requires an ex gratia contribution to the cost of legal representation to be made from public funds and what proportion of the reasonable costs incurred the contribution should, in the view of the Tribunal, in each case represent.
I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a letter from me to Lord Radcliffe and a copy of his reply.

Mr. G. Brown: Since this appears to meet very happily and satisfactorily the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I express our appreciation to the Home Secretary for the action that he has taken?

Mr. Grimond: May I join in saying how grateful we are to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Tribunal for undertaking this job, and how glad I am that no question of blame now enters into this matter? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether I am right in thinking that this is a temporary solution for this particular Tribunal and that the whole question of the costs of these Tribunals will be reconsidered in general when this one is over?

Mr. Brooke: I am very much obliged to both right hon. Gentlemen for what they have said. This is an ad hoc plan for this particular Tribunal and in no way governs what might happen in the case of any future Tribunal.

Mr. Wigg: As I raised this in the first instance, I hope that the question of blame still enters into it. I trust, for example, that the Tribunal will not con sider paying Mr. Vassall his expenses.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because he has already had £11,000 on account. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if this point is not clear, will go back to the Tribunal and see that he does not get it, anyway.

Mr. Brooke: We have entrusted this Tribunal with a very important inquiry and I think that we should now trust its discretion to make wise recommendations on this aspect, too.

Mr. D. Howell: Does this mean that the Tribunal will decide before a witness has given evidence whether he will have his expenses paid or after the Tribunal has heard the evidence? In respect of this in the long-term, will the Home Secretary bear in mind that in a recent inquiry into the health services, in which I was concerned, the failure of the Minister to determine how much money was to be paid to the person involved meant a serious embarrassment in providing the defence because that man's solicitor said that he did not know how he could be adequately represented, by what calibre of counsel, and so on, unless he knew before he started how much money he would get?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that the Tribunal could decide in advance of hearing the evidence. The Tribunal, when it has come to a conclusion in this inquiry, will be prepared to give advice on these additional matters.

Mr. Morris: Surely the Home Secretary will be aware that in ordinary applications for legal aid before the case is heard legal aid is granted after a short resumé of the man's grounds for bringing the litigation. Surely it will be a great embarrassment to a man if he has to brief counsel and mortgage everything he has and yet not know whether he will be reimbursed. Surely that is contrary to the whole system of legal aid.

Mr. Brooke: It is not an ordinary court and this is not a matter of legal aid. The question is whether people who are put to very heavy expense for legal representation before this Tribunal, should, in certain circumstances, regardless of their means, have reimbursement made to them of their expenses. I think that the case is quite clear.

Sir J. Duncan: May I ask my right hon. Friend on what Vote this will appear? I assume that, in the first instance, it will be paid out of the Civil Contingencies Fund.

Mr. Brooke: It will be borne on the Law Charges Vote, Class III, Vote 14.

Mr. Paget: Surely there is a distinction here. Before this Tribunal there is not a right to be represented. The people who are represented are the people whom the Tribunal will decide should be represented. Is not that the time when the decision ought to be taken as to what money will be available for them to be represented? The particular case of Mr. Vassall was mentioned. Presumably, he is to be represented because it will be of assistance to the Tribunal that he should be. In those circumstances, those who are represented ought to know, ought they not, whom they can brief and what they should do? I should have thought that the time to take this decision was when deciding upon representation.

Mr. Brooke: The Tribunal decided some time ago whom it will agree should have legal representation, and no doubt they have taken the appropriate steps to obtain that legal representation by now. I cannot offer any hope that the Tribunal will advise in advance of hearing the evidence whether everybody should receive 100 per cent. reimbursement, or whether some should receive partial reimbursement or none at all. That is something which I know the Tribunal would only be willing to do at the end of its proceedings, and not at the beginning. Quite frankly, I do not think that this will cause the serious difficulties that hon. Members apprehend.

Following are the letters:

Home Office,

Whitehall,

S.W.1.

12th December, 1962.

Dear Lord Radcliffe,

I made a statement in the House of Commons on the 29th November indicating that, in the case of witnesses appearing before the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to inquire into the Vassall case to whom the Tribunal allows legal representation, the Government would be prepared, in the public interest, to give consideration after the Tribunal has reported to claims which may be made to them for a contribution from public funds to the expenditure incurred.

As you will have seen from the report of the discussion which followed (Hansard, Cols. 661 to 665), there was support for the view that, in order to insure general confidence in the impartiality of the decisions reached on applications for the reimbursement of expenses, the advice of the Tribunal about the disposal of each application should be sought. I should myself welcome this; and I am venturing to inquire whether, in the light of the views expressed in the House of Commons, you and your colleagues would feel able to advise me in what cases of applications for the reimbursement of the costs of legal representation justice requires an ex gratia contribution to be made from public funds, and what proportion of the reasonable costs incurred the contribution should, in the view of the Tribunal, in each case represent.

I assume that in most cases the amount of reasonable costs incurred can be settled by agreement; but where this is not possible, I have it in mind to seek the assistance of the Chief Taxing Master.

I know that in asking you and your colleagues to assist me in this way I am asking you to add to a burden of public service which is already heavy; but I do very much hope that you may feel able to agree. I shall be most grateful to you if you can.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) HENRY BROOKE.

The Rt. Hon. Viscount Radcliffe, G.B.E.

Tribunal of Inquiry 14th December, 1962.

Dear Secretary of State,

I have discussed with my colleagues the request which you put to us, in your letter of 12th December, that the Tribunal should advise you in what cases of applications for the reimbursement of the costs of legal representation justice required an ex gratia payment from public funds, and what proportion of the reasonable costs incurred the contribution should in each represent. We are prepared to undertake this responsibility.

In the light of the views expressed in the House of Commons on this matter, we are prepared to undertake responsibility for giving such advice.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) RADCLIFFE.

The Rt. Hon. Henry Brooke, M.P.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF TANGANYIKA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Tanganyika, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

4.9 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn until Tuesday, 22nd January.
At this stage, I shall make only two brief points and if there is any comment on the Motion intervene, with leave, at a suitable point to make some response.
The first point is that the suggested Recess covers a period of 31 days and conforms precisely with the general post-war pattern. I do not think that I need go into detail on that. The other point is that Standing Order No. 112 makes it clear that even when we are adjourned, and representations are made to you, Mr. Speaker, by Her Majesty's Ministers that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, if you are so satisfied, arrangements can be made.
Naturally, in considering whether to make those representations to you Her Majesty's Government would take into account any representations that are made to them from the Opposition or from other hon. Members in the House. I think that it would be convenient for the House if I limited myself at this stage to those two points, and with leave to reply.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: Opposition to this kind of Motion sometimes arises for a number of different reasons. It could be that there is a special issue on which the House is not yet quite sure what will happen, in which case the point made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that Mr. Speaker has power to recall us if he feels fit is a normal answer. Sometimes, the Motion is opposed because an hon. Member wants to make a propaganda point or two. Today, however, the circumstances are totally different. We are being asked to agree that Parliament should get up and go away for a month, not when there is one issue facing us about the outcome of which we are not sure, but when the Executive is in a state of chaos over the whole field.
All the Government's policies are now in a shambles. The country is worried


about where we will be in a month's time on a whole range of matters. I find it very difficult to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Motion in this form. When the Executive totally fails, when Department after Department is in the chaotic mess that the Administration now is, it seems to me that the legislature—Parliament—then has to take over. That is our problem today.
Yesterday, we debated economic policy. We debated the shortage of work and the insecurity which is felt by people not only in the old so-called black spots, but also in what used to be prosperous areas. We face the fact that people feel very frightened about what the future has in store for them and it was made apparent to us that the Government have no policy for handling these affairs. They have no comfort to bring to Scotland, to Northern Ireland, to Wales or to the North-East Coast. What is even worse, they have no comfort to bring to the hitherto prosperous areas of the South-East and the Midlands.
We used to talk about moving work from the prosperous areas to the non-prosperous areas, but we cannot do that if the prosperous areas themselves find their rate of unemployment rising by as much as the average everywhere else. For us to announce that we are staying away for a month, thereby, as it were, allowing the Government to be saved by the bell from having to answer for their policies, is a course that the country would find difficult to understand.
The collapse of economic policy is not the only issue that is worrying the country. There is a total collapse of our defence policy. Yesterday, we had what I think everybody who heard it will agree was the most staggering statement from a Minister of Defence that we have ever had, even during the past eleven years. We are now told that we will try to insist upon an ally going ahead at its own expense with a weapon which it does not want, which, if we ever get it, will, said the Minister of Defence, be later than we need it, which will be less efficient than we wished and which will come at a time when other and better weapons exist. We are, presumably, doing this, because otherwise the Government would have to confess

that all their policy assumptions over the last ten years have been wrong.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): My right hon. Friend yesterday was not giving his opinion of the status of the programme. He was explaining certain views that had been put to him.

Mr. Brown: But when a Minister comes down to the House and makes a statement, he makes it on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Amery: rose—

Mr. Brown: Oh, no. I asked the Minister yesterday whether he accepted the statement which he saw fit to include in his announcement. He did not answer me. I presume, therefore, that he must have accepted it, otherwise he would not have put it M. If the Secretary of State for Air, who is on record with so many vacillations and simulations over this matter, now wants to tell me that, although that was what the Minister of Defence said yesterday, he did not agree with it, I am happy to give way.

Mr. Amery: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is giving way because I rose to intervene.

Mr. Brown: No.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend was at pains to explain, in a supplementary answer as well as in his statement, that all he was doing was recording certain views which had been expressed to him. He was neither endorsing nor denying them.

Mr. Brown: Where are we now?

Mr. Speaker: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman where I think we are now. We are on the fringes of order on this Question. I will have to be stern about it, otherwise this debate, concerning the Adjournment, will go on too long.

Mr. Brown: We have now been given an additional reason for not agreeing to the Motion. We are now told that when the Minister of Defence came to the House yesterday he was neither approving nor disapproving a statement made by the American Secretary of State. Nevertheless, he commended it to the House. He made his statement to the House.

Mr. Amery: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
When Ministers seek Mr. Speaker's approval to make a statement, they have never yet said, "We are merely reporters." It would not be worth the time of the House or the impertinence of asking Mr. Speaker's approval if all that they were doing was reporting something which we can all read in the Press. What Ministers do is to make a statement of Government policy. [Interruption.] If we are to be told that the Minister of Defence yesterday did not make a statement of Government policy, that, surely, is a reason for not adjourning.
The Minister of Defence has gone off to the Bahamas, apparently, before making a statement of Government policy. The Secretary of State for Air is not doing him any justice.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Hugh Fraser): My right hon. Friend is Minister of Aviation, not Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Brown: Then heaven help them, too.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In present circumstances, how could the Minister of Defence make a statement about his policy until he has been to the Bahamas to find out what it is?

Mr. Brown: On defence matters, I am not always in accord with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but what he has just said is the only interpretation that can be put on the remarks of the Minister of Aviation.
To be told, as we were yesterday, that we are pressing the Americans for a weapon that is crucial to us and that all our defence turns upon it, even though we know that they, who know more about it than we do, say that it has all its defects, is such a tragic situation for the country's defence policy that for the House to be asked to go away and to stay away for a month, leaving it just like that, is impossible. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of this. [Interruption.] There is no limitation on the debate and no reason why he

should not say a word for himself. I am not sure whom the Minister is trying to help. We will willingly listen to him presently.
The situation is even worse than that. The Government have know from the outset that this weapon was dubious. They have had all the information that the Opposition have had, they were told when we were told that it was doubtful and they were told when we were that the difficulties were increasing, but, nevertheless, they have chosen to pin all their policy upon it and to deny everything that we have said, even though at the time Ministers knew that we were saying what they knew. To find ourselves now in a position where our whole policy is pinned to a weapon that will not arise means that the country's defence strategy is in total collapse.
We must know—the people outside expect us to ask—where the country's defences now stand, what arrangements will now be made for them and what alternatives are now proposed. We cannot leave this for a month—

Mr. Speaker: It is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to indicate the issues which give him anxiety in assenting to the Motion. That does not mean that anybody could here tell him what the policy should be or discuss what the arrangements should be.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps my last sentence did not quite register with you, Mr. Speaker, since I was on my way down and you were on the way up as I said it. I said that we could not leave matters in this state far one month. Who knows what we may be called upon to face during that month? Even a month's absence without a relevant, modern defence policy must be a matter of tremendous importance to us.
I do not see how one could possibly advise the country that it is right for Parliament to disappear for a month when the Government have not given a single answer to the issues of defence following the collapse of their cherished Skybolt. This never was a weapon, and Ministers knew it. But I shall not develop that point further. I see that you, Mr. Speaker, are only partially with me. I only hope that I have made the point.
There is an additional reason why I find it difficult to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to assent to Parliament rising for a month. That is the international situation. We have had no explanation of what the Government propose to do during the next month about the situation in the Congo. This is not a hypothetical situation. There is a very dangerous build-up of tension there. Up to now, however, the Government have offered no satisfactory explanation to us for having got themselves into the position in which Britain and France seem to be opposing not only the United Nations, but the United States and even Belgium as well. I must say that to have got the country into the position of opposing Belgium over what shauld be done about Katanga is a "magnificent" operation by the Government.
This is almost certain to develop during the next month. For the House to rise for a month, with no idea of what policy the Government will pursue in the Congo during that month, and with no opportunities to urge upon them the folly of the line they have been following, seems to us to be asking too much and to be entering on a course which people outside will not understand.
Then there is the Common Market situation, which will develop still further in the next few weeks. It is almost impossible to understand the policy of the Government towards the talks during the next few weeks. The President of the Board of Trade says, in words familiar to us on this side of the House, that it is all a matter of the terms and that the Government will not consider going in unless those terms seem to be much better than they currently are. We are told by other Ministers that there are alternatives we might pursue—and these words, too, are familiar Ito us. On the other hand, the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal seem to be acting on the assumption that we are going in on the best terms available, whatever they are. The country is worried about all this. Wherever one goes one finds it an issue which excites and troubles people.
The recent public opinion polls have shown that the Government have steadily disappearing support on this subject. Yet we are being asked to

depart for a month with no knowledge whatever as to where the Government may go in that time—or, indeed, who may prove supreme in the party opposite.
I would have liked to have devoted more time to these matters, but for the obvious problems I am running into. Our doubts are not the usual matter of form. They really are serious. We are faced with a Government whose policies are in collapse and most of whose Ministers are in total disagreement with one another. The nation, economically and internationally, is in trouble, and has no defences worthy of the name. At such a stage in the nation's affairs, only Parliament can act. Unless the Leader of the House can give a more convincing reason for the Motion, I find it impossible to advise my hon. Friends to assent to it.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The subjects touched upon by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) are very important, but his arguments in connection with each were the wrong arguments in connection with this debate. If he had asked for an assurance that no vital decision would be taken during the Recess which would be likely to alter the policy of an independent nuclear deterrent in our hands, I would have agreed. But that was not his argument.
The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to turn this occasion into a minor defence debate. He was really taking the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence yesterday as his text. He assumed from that text a great many possibilities as being facts, which they are not. Obviously, there are risks, and we all know what they are, whichever way we consider the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was doing the country no service by assuming that the worst possible conclusions in my right hon. Friend's statement are facts, when they are nothing more than possible risks.
If we can have an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, before we return from the Recess, no final decision will be taken by the Government regarding Britain's possession of an independent nuclear deterrent, I will be content to go away long enough to ensure that the Government have full opportunity of discussing the outcome of the negotiations when my right hon.


Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence and my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary return from the Bahamas.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: Bearing in mind the hon. Member's concern some weeks ago, is he happy to leave a decision of this kind in the hands of the Prime Minister?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I was saying that I wanted no final decision to be taken on these matters before Parliament reassembled. Had the right hon. Member for Belper argued on those lines I would have felt inclined to support him. Instead, he chose to put the worst possible construction on yesterday's statement by the Minister of Defence—a construction which can only weaken us in these negotiations with President Kennedy.

Mr. G. Brown: I put no construction on the Minister's statement which was not said by him. I will recall his words to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Minister said:
From the point of view of the United States, the weapon is proving more expensive than originally estimated; secondly it looks as though it will be late and possibly not so efficient and reliable as had at first been hoped; and, thirdly, alternative weapon systems available to the United States Government have proved relatively more successful." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 894.]
All these things are apparent in the United States. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that they are not equally relevant and applicable to us? Does a weapon that is inefficient for the American forces become efficient for the British forces?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As long as the right hon. Gentleman does not go on calling me "learned" I will endeavour to answer.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman always looks it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence was stating an opinion, expressed in the United States. We know that the opinions expressed in the United States are by no means unanimous, and it is very unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Belper chose to put the most gloomy construction on those words.
I come back now to the main point of whether we should go away for 31 days or not. So long as we have an assurance that no final decision about the British policy of an independent nuclear deterrent will be taken while we are away, I shall be agreeable to the date remaining as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I agree that unemployment, too, is a very important subject, but I cannot believe that a fortnight one way or the other will make a great deal of difference to this matter, especially when we know that the present forecast is that soon after the turn of the year the peak will be reached and the figures are expected to come down. I hope that they will, and that the date will be earlier than anticipated.
As regards the Congo, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if there were to be a major change of policy while we were away it would be a mistake for the Government to do that without recalling Parliament, but if we have the customary assurance of my right hon. Friend that the usual procedure will be followed over recalling Parliament, I should be agreeable to that. I consider that this is not the moment to give anybody outside this country the impression that those snow meeting the President of the United States and the Secretaries of State in the Bahamas do not have our full support in standing out for this country in the best way possible.
Finally, may I ask my right hon. Friend one other question arising from the statement made by the Home Secretary today about the question of Services candidates? As it is proposed to deal with the immediate by-elections by administrative methods, may I ask that we postpone setting up the Select Committee until we come back, because I think that it might be profitable to have a day's, or half a day's, debate on whether we want a Select Committee to do this. I feel that it would be a pity if, because Christmas is drawing so near, this were done on the nod, because it is rather like taking a bulldozer to crack a nut.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I agree with every word said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brawn), although I hope that I will


not be ruled out of order for saying that. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend said, and, therefore, I will not waste the time of the House by repeating or underlining what he said on the matters he raised.
I wish, first, to raise an entirely different question, but one which I believe is of great importance, certainly to a number of constituencies in the country, and one about which the Government had plenty of warning, because last week, when I asked the Leader of the House when we were to consider this Motion for the Adjournment, I made it clear that we were hoping to have a statement from the Minister of Power on the subject of the proposed, or suggested, take-over by Stewart and Lloyds Ltd. of the Whitehead Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
We hoped that we would have had a statement on the matter from the Minister of Power which would have made it superfluous to raise the matter in the House, but the statement which we had from the right hen. Gentleman yesterday has only made the situation worse, and I think, therefore, that we ought to have a further statement from the Government on the matter before the House agrees to depart for the Christmas Recess.
This is a serious question, affecting the whole steel industry of the country, and it seems to me particularly serious that at a time when the steel industry is running at about 70 per cent. of capacity action may be taken by one of the big steel firms which could only contribute to greater difficulties, at any rate in some parts of the industry. We therefore have to consider what would be the results, and what might happen if this proposed take-over bid of Stewart and Lloyds were allowed to go ahead.
The Minister of Power, in his replies yesterday, did not seem to have very much information on the subject. He said that he had talked to the chairman of the company, but he had not done much else, and as far as I could see he was not proposing to take any further action, but the situation is that if Stewart and Lloyds takes over the Whitehead Iron and Steel Co. this would gravely affect a number of other steel companies. In particular, it could have an effect on Richard Thomas & Bald-wins Limited and its operations not only

in Ebbw Vale, but in other parts of Wales. It could have a very serious effect, because hitherto the Whitehead Iron and Steel Co. has been one of the chief customers of Richard Thomas & Baldwins, and therefore this company has a right to be considered in this matter.
After all, Richard Thomas & Baldwins is national property, and the Government surely have a duty to look after national property. Therefore, if a takeover bid by a rival steel firm were to be injurious to Richard Thomas & Bald-wins, the Government would, or should, immediately be concerned with the matter. We in this House have every right to be suspicious of the Government in this respect, because we had an example only a year or two ago of what happened in the steel industry when the House went off for the Summer Recess. A few days after the House went into recess the Government sold off the remaining parts of the publicly-owned steel industry. We therefore have every reason for being suspicious of the Government's behaviour in this matter.
On Monday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) put it to the Minister of Power that he should do something about this, and I fully expected that the Minister would at least show some real concern about the situation, particularly as it is suggested in the Economist, for example, that this proposed Stewart and Lloyds' take-over may be the beginning of further take-overs in the steel industry. Do the Government think that it is not a rather serious matter that the steel industry, particularly in its present condition, should be treated as though it were a kind of plaything by some of these great steel masters? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a matter for which the Government have no concern?
Look at the answers given by the Minister of Power when questions were put to him. He said:
It is bound to be a little time before any results of their discussion"—
that is, the discussion of the proposed take-over by Stewart and Lloyds—
emerge…
How long? What is the Government's view? Is it not possible that if the Government did not take action this takeover might go ahead during the Recess


when the House was not sitting? What is the Government's view about that?
The Leader of the House has had some warning on this matter, because he knew that we would raise this question today if we did not get satisfactory answers from the Minister of Power yesterday, and nobody could call them satisfactory. The Minister of Power also said:
It is bound to be a little time before any results of their discussion emerge, and it would be quite impossible for me at present to answer the latter part of the supplementary question about the precise operation of Whitehead's if this transaction takes place.
There is no great difficulty in the Government discovering what would be the result of a take-over of Whitehead's. Have they asked the management of Richard Thomas & Baldwins what would be the effects? Surely, if a takeover bid is to be put through which could have serious and injurious effects on a national property, Richard Thomas & Baldwins, the Minister and the Government have an elementary duty to take the precaution of discovering the views of the company and the consequences, or possible consequences, of this transaction.
But that was not the worst of it. The Minister went on to say:
I said quite clearly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I would certainly consult the Board formally if it became necessary for me to do so.
How is the Minister to find out whether it is necessary to do so if he will not consult the steel firms concerned? He then said:
I do not think that that point has been reached. Whether it will be reached in the future I do not know. I and the Government would watch employment, but it might be that if this transaction came off the effect on employment would not be deleterious but might be an improvement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 892.]
How does the Minister come to that conclusion if he has not consulted some of the steel firms which have been supplying steel to the Whitehead Iron and Steel Company in the past, and which may be excluded from selling steel to that company in future if this take-over went through? How can the Government give the impression that it might improve the employment situation? The Minister of Power—if that is his proper title;

I thought that he might be re-christened the "Minister of Impotence" in view of his answers yesterday—should be prepared to take this question very much more seriously. The steel industry is in a serious plight. The Government should be considering measures to enable it to be restored, and I think that it would be improper for the House to depart for a lengthy Recess without having very much better guarantees from the Government than we have so far received.
I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that if there is any suggestion whatever of this take-over bid being followed through while the House is not sitting, the Government will intervene to stop it, by asking the Iron and Steel Board to do it, or by doing it themselves direct, or by using their financial control over the industry. I ask the Government for a specific guarantee that they will not permit this take-over bid to go through until the House of Commons has had a chance of debating the whole matter, which will mean after we return from the Recess.
I wish to support the general contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper—and no doubt it will be supported by others. The Government's whole policy is in a shambles over a wide area, but particularly on the issue of Skybolt and the collapse of the policy of the so-called independent nuclear deterrent. In view of that, there ought to have been arrangements for a full debate in the House on the consequences of what has occurred, because it may be that we will be committed by what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence may decide in the Bahamas.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) is very easily satisfied if he thinks that all we need to do is to have confidence in these Ministers, the same Ministers who have misled the country about the nature and capacity of Skybolt for two years. Why we should have confidence in them at this moment passes all comprehension. Nobody knows what the Prime Minister will bring back from the Bahamas. I do not know whether there are enough pheasants and hares in the Bahamas. I do not know how he will fill in his time.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: There are no pheasants and no shooting.

Mr. Foot: Surely the whole House recognises that the collapse of the whole policy tied to Skybolt has raised an entirely new situation. If the House is to be jealous of its position, it must insist that the whole consequent association of British strategy and the nuclear deterrent and how it operates should be fully debated in the House. It ought to have been debated before the House breaks up on Friday, but we could return earlier to debate it.
The proper course, following from what my right hon. Friend has said, is to vote against the Government's Motion. If we defeat them, they will have to think up a new proposition and give us some answers to our questions. However, in particular, I should like a specific answer to my specific question about the steel industry.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: Before we agree to this Motion at a time of good will and happy Christmas feeling, I want to ask for certain assurances from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on a matter of some constitutional importance which cannot be simply left while we all go away for Christmas. As hon. Members know, the House cannot argue with Members in another place, but to go away for the whole of the Christmas Recess feeling that a constitutional matter has not been ventilated cannot be right. Therefore, unless I can have a definite assurance from the Leader of the House, I propose to oppose the Motion on specific grounds, and I think that the Leader of the House should be aware of them.
It is no fault of the Leader of the House, or of anybody else, that the Foreign Secretary is in another place.

Mr. Lipton: Not of anybody else? What about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Yates: The Prime Minister may have chosen to appoint as the head of one of the great Departments of State someone who is in another place. Constitutionally, it is extremely difficult for the Foreign Secretary to criticise hon. Members here, or for us to make any references to him in this place. Therefore, there are only three ways in which

I or other hon. Members who wish to disagree with the head of this great Department of State can do so: he can invite us to his room to have a chat with him in private—and he is an extremely busy man—he can write to us, or we to him; or he can make statements in the Palace of Westminster, or attack or criticise an hon. Member on an open public platform.
There are some constitutional difficulties in this matter and I want the Leader of the House to consider them. Will he have a word with the Foreign Secretary on his return and suggest that if, in future, it becomes necessary for him to criticise an hon. Member, he should endeavour to notify the hon. Member and to enable the criticism to be made by a member of the Government from the Dispatch Box? He should not criticise hon. Members anywhere in the Palace of Westminster when the hon. Members concerned are absent from the country and do not know of the criticisms. That is quite fair and reasonable and in accord with the courtesies and dignities of the relations between this House and another place.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear—and we are following his argument with great interest—whether the criticisms about the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) were made in another place, or some other other place in the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member knows that the Foreign Secretary could not possibly criticise a Member of this House in the other place. I am not disposed to discuss here where the criticism was made.

Mr. Lipton: Oh.

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member already knows, so there is no point in his saying "Oh."
The Leader of the House might also care to look at one other problem. When hon. Members are in foreign countries, Her Majesty's embassies give them certain courtesies, which are not expected but which are most welcome. When hon. Members recently visited the Yemen, Her Majesty's representative, for some reason best known to Her Majesty's Government, did not meet the members of that group. Will my right hon. Friend


inquire whether the Foreign Office discouraged the representative from meeting us, and why it was necessary for him to send only his clerk? I do not complain and I am glad to have communications from legations from anybody. Clerks are splendid people and are able to help.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), but I am finding it difficult to relate what he is saying to the Question which we are debating, which is whether we should adjourn on Friday until 22nd January.

Mr. Yates: I realise that the subjects which I have been raising deal with the relationships between ourselves in this honourable House and the head of a Department of State in another place, but I feel that matters of this nature cannot be left anyhow over the time of good will and Christmas. If we can have the assurances I seek from the Leader of the House, I shall be satisfied, and I am sure that other hon. Members will be satisfied. I do not wish to detain the House further.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I appreciate the importance of the matter referred to by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates)—although he may have been out of ardor at times—but I wish to return to the question referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I wish to reinforce the deep concern which he expressed about the proposed takeover of Whiteheads by Stewart and Lloyds. My hon. Friend referred to the inadequate reply which the Minister of Power gave yesterday in respect of this matter, and particularly to the grave concern expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice).
There was one point to Which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale could also have referred to arising from the reply given yesterday by the Minister of Power. The Minister said:
I…am taking steps to inform myself as far as possible of what is happening…"—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 17th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 893.]

My hon. Friend has spoken of the gravity of the situation and some of the things which might happen. I want to go a step further and tell the Leader of the House that if this merger takes place it is almost certain that production will be transferred from Newport to Corby, with the result that the last remaining steel works in my constituency—the R.T.B. Elba Steelworks—will be threatened with closure, because it is one of the best customers of Whiteheads and devotes practically all its production to that firm. On many occasions Whiteheads has paid tribute to the quality of the products of the Elba Steelworks. The importance of this matter cannot be overemphasised. No fewer than 450 men employed in these works are facing the prospect of losing their jobs if this merger goes through.
I wish to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend to the Leader of the House that nothing should be done in connection with this matter during the Adjournment, and before we have the opportunity of discussing some very disconcerting aspects of the proposed takeover bid.
There has been a very close and friendly co-operation between White-heads and R.T.B. There is a traditional history of very friendly relations between the two organisations. Indeed, R.T.B. has been the main suppliers of steel to Whiteheads. An indication of this close relationship is provided by the fact that the managing director of Whiteheads is also on the Board of R.T.B. Will the Leader of the House tell the Minister of Power that we expect him not only to look into the matter, but prevent any action being taken before we have had a chance of discussing it here?
There are many other things to which I would have liked to refer, but they may be out of order in a debate of this kind. I feel that the Minister has sufficient powers vested in him under the Iron and Steel Act to see that this matter is carefully looked into by the Iron and Steel Board—one member of which is the managing director of Stewart and Lloyds—and that this House will have the opportunity of ensuring that the whole question is investigated before the livelihood of so many men in Wales is adversely affected.

4.44 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am not entirely happy about going off for the Recess and leaving in abeyance a very important constitutional question, namely, the question of Service men leaving the Services by putting their names forward as candidates for Parliament. This process is bringing the whole of our political system—and, indirectly, this, House—into great disrepute throughout the country. This is not a party matter; hon. Members opposite are as concerned as are my hon. Friends and I.
When the average elector reads in the newspapers of a great number of candidates standing for various constituencies he cannot but wonder whether the whole of our political machinery is in danger. I shall not now inquire into the reason why certain members of the Services use this method of exodus to obtain their discharge; that is something which can be dealt with more properly in another debate and at another time. But I am satisfied that the Government have had reasonable warning that this would happen, and in my opinion should have taken earlier steps to see that something was done about it. This matter could be regulated quite easily between the two parties in the normal course of business, because there is no dispute about it. In those circumstances surely we ought to arrive at a solution, rather than go away for the Recess leaving the matter in abeyance.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) pointed out the great difficulties of arriving at the so-called easy solution, which is obviously that these men—whether officers Or other ranks—should be released only for the period of the election, and then called back if they are not elected. I believe I have the argument of the hon. Member for Dudley correctly in saying that the difficulty is that this machinery can be adopted only during a war, and it cannot be made applicable to present circumstances.
Nevertheless, earlier we heard the Home Secretary say that this matter could be dealt with by administrative means. If we have the administrative means, surely we could have used them already. That is what I cannot understand. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal a little more fully with this matter, which is exercising the minds of the public.
If any machinery can be devised whereby the various arms of the Services an, able to release candidates purely for the period of the election and then, if they are not elected, can compel them to return to the Services, it will be an extremely useful solution. I understand that there are legal difficulties attached to the problem, but it ought to be possible to arrive at some ad hoc solution by agreement between both parties within the framework of the existing law, whether under the Army Act or the Air Force Act, to make it impossible for Service men to use this means of obtaining their release and so bringing into ridicule the whale of our political structure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make definite approaches through the usual channels to see whether an intermediate interlocutory process can be devised which will enable us to halt this process until the matter has been reviewed by the House.

Mr. R. T. Paget: As a matter of guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is it in order to discuss something that is being referred to a Select Committee? The matter is in such a state of confusion that I am not sure about it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that nothing has yet been referred to a Select Committee.

Mr. Paget: It is a useful Ruling, if you are saying that the question does not apply until the Select Committee has actually been set up. I thought that there were other Rulings to the contrary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not take me too far. I hope that the House will keep to the subject under debate, which is the question whether or not we should adjourn on Friday and return on 22nd January.

Dr. Glyn: I hope that I have not trespassed on your good will for too long, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I felt that this was a constitutional question which we ought to consider in this debate, because it is exercising the minds of the electorate. Before we depart for the Christmas Recess we should give the matter some thought. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me a better assurance than merely telling me that administrative action may be taken.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It is gratifying to know that the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) share the disquiet that the Government Motion has provoked. As is so often the case in matters of personal propriety and public delicacy, I stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Member for The Wrekin. Like him, I resent the animadversions which the Foreign Secretary made upon him, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asked. If that assurance is not forthcoming the hon. Member for The Wrekin will be quite right to express his perturbation by voting against the Motion.
I am disturbed by the proposal contained in the Motion, although my constituents will be even more disturbed. I feel it is wrong that Members representing constituencies in north-east Lancashire should, in the present situation, contemplate taking over a month's holiday when so many of their constituents are in enforced idleness.
The unemployment figure for Bacup, in my constituency, is 3·7 per cent. of the insured population unemployed. That is only one town in an area where the figure of unemployed is high. In Colne it is 4·2 per cent. and in Burnley it is 4 per cent. During the summer the figure goes as high as 7 per cent. We are all distressed to hear from time to time about redundancy in the railway or the shipbuilding industries. But I think there is insufficient appreciation of the fact that during the last eleven years 50 per cent. of the labour force in the cotton industry has become redundant.
The number employed in the industry is about half what it was when the present Government came to office. There was nothing in the speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Labour yesterday which indicated that they were fully seized of the seriousness of the situation. In protest against the apathy, indifference and the inability of the Government to cope with the situation, I think that we should oppose the Motion.
I wish to go further. I do not think that the fault is altogether with the Government. To some extent it is the

fault of this House as a House. I should like us to come back a week earlier from the Christmas Recess than is proposed by the Government so that we may have a full and searching inquiry into the structure of the House and the way in which the business is conducted.
The other day we had a concession from the Leader of the House, which I greatly appreciated, in respect of the visits of the Gentleman-Usher of the Black Rod. This arose from an incident over which I hope that I did not embarrass Mr. Speaker too much. But I felt it necessary to protest against the way in which traditional practices were interfering with the manner in which this House conducts its affairs. To me, it seemed absurd that when we have pressing problems with which to deal, part of the time of the House should be taken by observing some mediaeval practices in the way in which they are observed.
To me, it seems odd that we should spend days of Parliamentary time discussing the details of the Finance Bill which few hon. Members are sufficiently equipped to discuss with the care and attention that such details require. It is also very odd that we should spend a great deal of time discussing detailed proposals when we do not have time to discuss major issues of defence, education, the care of the aged and all the other broad principles to which I believe that an Assembly of this kind should devote itself.
I therefore propose that the Government should amend the Motion before the House so that we may come back earlier and have an inquiry into the conduct of the House before it becomes necessary to hold a post mortem.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I heard with great pleasure the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who opened the debate from the Opposition Front Bench. He was good enough to say that he did not always agree with me on matters of defence, but that on the occasion when I intervened in his speech he did agree with me. I wish that our differences had always been confined to defence matters. But there are other


issues to which, from time to time, we have arrived at rather different conclusions.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Why emphasise them today, when we are in agreement?

Mr. Silverman: I am not sure that I follow the relevance of that intervention.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Then I will try to put it in such a way that the hon. Gentleman will follow it. Why decide to emphasise those differences today when we are all in agreement?

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Gentleman could have possessed his soul in patience for little more than 90 seconds longer, he would have found that what I was saying was only a preface to saying what he has just said for me.
I agree enthusiastically and warmly with everything which was said by the right hon. Member for Belper, not merely on the defence aspect but on all other matters. I am grateful to him for saying it and I hope that our agreement will at least last to the end of the Chamber and that we shall not part company in the Division Lobby. I shall be happy to follow the right hon. Gentleman the whole of the way.
I know, as all hon. Members know, that these debates on a Motion to adjourn for a period—that is not quite the same as having a debate on the Adjournment—are, in a sense, common form. If hon. Members were thoroughly honest, they would agree that there is a certain amount of humbug about them, in that a great many people would be disappointed if the proposition for which we contend so enthusiastically were by some chance to be carried—

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is breaking the "union rules".

Mr. Silverman: But that in no way weakens the constitutional propriety and importance of raising these questions when we have this customary opportunity to raise them.
As was said by the right hon. Gentleman, there are particular reasons for advancing the proposition today with real sincerity, in that we should all be

happy to cut down the length of the Adjournment period by a week or ten days if that would give us an opportunity to deal with some of the things with which we should like Parliament to deal and which, so far, we have been prevented from dealing with by the Government.
I suppose that there has not for many years been a Christmas period when right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House had to go back to their constituents and offer them such cold comfort as we have to offer them today. Yesterday, we discussed not the unemployment situation of the country, but specific aspects of it—spots of unemployment here, there and somewhere else. It was just the luck of the draw whether the plight of a hard-hit community found that its grievances were voiced in yesterday's debate.
When I first came to this House there was a mass unemployment problem. I suppose that there were then more than 2½ million unemployed. The problem was a national one. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we had a national problem, albeit on a smaller scale. But it is of the same nature today. The right hon. Gentleman also said that there are, riding on the crest of the wave of disaster as it were, over and above the general level of misery arising from long-continued unemployment, certain places in the country which had been singled out as scheduled areas, distressed or special areas of local unemployment where the miseries of unemployment were intensified in a localised form.
One of the saddest things, to my mind which occurred on that former occasion—we are getting back to that situation again now—was to see hon. Members on this side of the House, concerned equally with the troubles of everyone and anxious to relieve them, compelled, and rightly so, by local loyalties to compete with one another for the odd crumbs of comfort which the Government were prepared to dole out.

Mr. Dan Jones: That is perfectly true.

Mr. Silverman: Yesterday, the debate was concerned, in the main, with particular areas which have justified themselves to the President of the Board of


Trade as entitled to the advantages—such as they are, they are not very much—of being scheduled under the provisions of the Local Employment Act. It would be quite wrong on this occasion to argue the merits of one area against any other. The reason why I am dealing with the matter today as a reason for advising the House not to accept the Government's Motion for a month's adjournment at this time, is that if the House were to vote that it should go into recess for four weeks from next Friday it would be encouraging the President of the Board of Trade in his gross dereliction of duty and gross discourtesy in respect of the area of which my constituency forms a part.
I appeal to the Leader of the House. If he wants this Motion to be carried, will he use such influence as he still possesses—I am sure that he must still possess some—with the President of the Board of Trade to persuade him not to keep running away from his job? I want the Leader of the House to persuade the President of the Board of Trade to face up to the facts of a particular situation and not to persist in a flat, unconditional refusal to meet the Members of Parliament for the area concerned to discuss the matter with him, even privately, at the direct request of the local authorities concerned.
I have many papers here, but I do not want to go through them. It would be quite wrong, however, to make such a charge as I have made without putting the House in possession of the bare facts. My constituency consists of four or five different authorities. There is the non-county borough of Colne, there is the non-county borough of Nelson, there are the urban districts of Barrowford, Brierfield and Trawden. This conurbation—a dreadful name to use—shades almost imperceptibly into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones), and further, until it includes just the tip of the constituency of Clitheroe, most of which lies outside this kind of area and is not faced with this kind of problem, and which is represented by an hon. Member opposite.
This area is especially hard hit, and always has been. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) has spoken of the state of the

cotton industry and unemployment in his area. He was more than justified in calling attention to that, but compare it with my area. I am now doing what I thought was a sad thing to find hon. Members doing when I first came to the House, but we have to do it. Compare my hon. Friend's constituency with Colne, where unemployment is 9·8 per cent., Nelson where it is just under 7 per cent., Padiham about the same, and Burnley, where it is about 7 per cent. Padiham has always been the least hard hit, but it now has mare than 7 per cent. unemployed. All these areas were once grouped together in a Special Area. In 1959, under the Act as it then was, they formed the North-East Lancashire Development Area. The area was so designated until in July, 1959—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am most reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope that he will try to relate this debate to what we are now discussing.

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps I may say again, if I did not make it clear, that the President of the Board of Trade has refused to discuss these matters with us. He was requested by the local authorities to do so. He has been requested by the three hon. Members concerned, and he has refused. He has also refused to speak in the House about it. He has refused to receive a delegation from the authorities concerned. I am not prepared to vote that the House shall go into recess for one month until the President of the Board of Trade has undertaken to bring to an end this gross abdication of his responsibilities.
I hope that I am not boring the House with these human tragedies. It is necessary that the House should understand whether the President of the Board of Trade was acting reasonably or unreasonably in refusing to see us. If it was a trivial matter, no doubt he was reasonable enough but if it was an important matter he would not be reasonable in so doing. I am bound to tell the House what the facts are so that hon. Members can judge whether it is reasonable or not and call upon him to see us even now before we adjourn on Friday. I hope that I have made clear that although I am not discussing the merits of the matter as an unemployment problem, or what the President of


the Board of Trade ought or ought not to do on the merits of the situation, I am well within the rules of relevancy in saying that the President of the Board of Trade was utterly wrong, and remains utterly wrong, in not discussing this matter about which my hon. Friends and I would like to see him.
In July, 1959, the area was a Special Area. It had never been a Special Area, before but it was then. It remained one until the right hon. Gentleman's party won the General Election in that year. The first thing the Government did when they came back to power was to repeal the Act and to enact the present Act, which prevents them from dealing with areas as areas and compels them to deal with odd spots of exceptional unemployment scattered about the country. Immediately, the area was unscheduled and it has remained unscheduled ever since. The position has been getting catastrophically worse month after month and year after year until, on 16th November this year, the joint local committee sent a memorandum to the President of the Board of Trade drawing his attention to the situation and to how rapidly it was deteriorating.
I will not discuss that, but I ask hon. Members to believe me when I say that it supported what I have been saying. It supported the percentages of unemployment and the way in which the situation has been deteriorating over that time. When the committee sent the President of the Board of Trade that memorandum, it wrote a letter to each of the three Members of Parliament concerned, to me in particular. The letter asked whether I would take the initiative in trying to arrange a non-party, non-political so far as we could make it, deputation to the President of the Board of Trade of the three hon. Members whose constituencies were involved in this situation, two on this side of the House and one opposite. I ascertained from the other two hon. Members whether they were willing to come, and both said that they were. I telephoned to the President of the Board of Trade's secretary and he told me that the right hon. Gentleman was going to Paris in the following week and, therefore, could not see us immediately, but he would put a note on the board telling us when he could see us. No note came.
A few days later I wrote to him a latter seating out what had happened so far and asking again if he would arrange to see us. He wrote back saying that if we had anything new to say no doubt we could say it to his Parliamentary Private Secretary. That is all. I wrote back and said that it was not for me to say whether the facts of the situation were new to the President of the Board of Trade or not; I would find that out—and no doubt a number of other things—when I came to see him. We were anxious to see him. We asked to see the President of the Board of Trade, not his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I have every affection and respect for him, but he is not the President.
Before writing that letter I consulted my hon. Friend, and I also consulted the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. F. Pearson). They both said that they quite agreed that it would not be right to discuss this with the Parliamentary Secretary and that we ought to see the President of the Board of Trade—and the President ought to see us. I say that especially, because the hon. Member for Clitheroe has published a letter which is not quite accurate. In it he said that he was willing to go with us to see the President of the Board of Trade at first, but that, when the President said that we should see the Parliamentary Private Secretary, he parted company from us. He did not part company from us. Before writing my letter saying that we wanted to see the President of the Board of Trade, I asked him specifically whether—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member's difference with another hon. Member can be relevant to what we are debating now.

Mr. Silverman: I think that its relevance will be clear by the time I have finished. I say that in all sincerity. One cannot lay out all the parts of a case in one single breath. One has to do it part by part, in the hope that the relevance of the whole will be seen when the picture is complete. I ask your indulgence in this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point which I am making, and why I am making it at this point, seeks to show what the whole course of events was, because, as I shall show in a


moment, the President of the Board of Trade has entered into cahoots with the hon. Member for Clitheroe to prevent the deputation from going and yet to provide himself with an alibi. We shall see what happened, because I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade when, in reply to my letter, I received a printed postcard four days later telling me that the communication had been received and was receiving due attention. I wrote back to him and said that that was not enough and that unless I heard from him within two days that he was ready to see us at some time convenient to himself, I should assume that he was unable or unwilling to see us.
I then received this extraordinary letter from the President of the Board of Trade. So far, I have been talking only of discourtesy. I am not talking about incompetence. It is a very short letter. He wrote:
My dear Silverman,
I am not sure whether when you wrote to me you were aware that the North-East Lancashire Development Committee had written to me direct requesting that North-East Lancashire should be registered as a development district under the Local Employment Act, 1960.
The right hon. Gentleman had been told that not merely by me but by the committee concerned on 16th November and he knew, or ought to have known, perfectly well that the whole of the correspondence which we were having arose out of the fact that the committee had sent him that memorandum and had asked me to ask him for an interview about it.
The first part of his letter, therefore, is either a deliberate piece of gross offensiveness, or it shows that the President of the Board of Trade, when he wrote his letter, had not troubled to read the correspondence at all. It goes on:
I have replied fully to this letter and you may find it useful to have a copy of what I have said.
The right hon. Gentleman sent me a copy of what he had said. I shall not read it, or discuss it in any way, but I want to point out in support of what I am saying by way of criticism of the President of the Board of Trade that that reply to the communication of 16th November was dated 12th December, the day before he had written to tell me about it. He had not merely written

this direct, but he had gone behind the correspondence to find some alibi, or excuse, for not seeing my hon. Friend and myself. The extraordinary thing is that a week before that, the hon. Member for Clitheroe had written to the secretary of the committee a long, long answer containing the exact argumentation, word for word, as was contained in the right hon. Gentleman's letter to them of 12th December, a copy of which he sent me on 13th December.
I say that this is not the way in which a senior Minister ought to treat Members of the House of Commons concerned about the affairs, the misfortunes and, indeed, the tragedies of their constituents. I am bound to say that I say this with regret in the case of the President of the Board of Trade. I have been a Member with him in the House far many years. I have never known him to fail in courtesy before. I have never known him to behave in this way before.
If I may say so without impertinence, I should not have thought that it was in character for him to behave in this way. But whether it is or not, I say to the Leader of the House that he ought not to allow the House to disperse, and that as far as I am concerned I shall not allow the House to disperse, while Ministers deal with serious matters of this kind in the cavalier fashion which the President of the Board of Trade has shown.
There is nothing in his answer. It is merely a rehash of all the old arguments. Unemployment is not unemployment if it is among women. Unemployment is not unemployment if it is among juveniles. Unemployment is not unemployment if it is only part-time. It is not unemployment if there are to be jobs in some other industries in a few years time. All this is in the letter. There is nothing new in it at all.
It is because the committee found it impossible to shake the President of the Board of Trade out of his callous indifference that they asked Members of Parliament to see him and to see what enlightenment they could bring to him. I can only suppose that the President of the Board of Trade behaved in this uncharacteristic way because he knew perfectly well that he had no answer to the criticisms which were


being offered to him and was not willing to face the music when those of us whose responsibility it is as much as his wanted to discuss it with him.
I say nothing about all the major matters which have been discussed hitherto in the debate. I have said already that I agree with what has been said, and I apologise to the House for seeming to make so much of what might to them look like a purely personal and individual constituency, individual member, grievance or complaint. I do not offer it in that spirit. But what can happen to the Member of Parliament for Burnley, or Nelson and Colne, can happen to any other Member of the House unless Ministers are to be held strictly to their responsibilities and unless Ministers are to act with ordinary good manners to the people who have responsibilities to discharge, just as the President of the Board of Trade himself has responsibilities which he ought to discharge, but does not.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: I was much refreshed, and I am sure the House was, by the opening observations of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) about his new relationship with his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). That was in keeping with the spirit of the season. I was also interested in his reference to the use which traditionally is made of this debate and his reference to the word "humbug".
I cannot say that I welcomed very much else that I heard from the hon. Member, and in particular I was sorry to hear the figures which he quoted relating to unemployment in Nelson and Colne and other nearby towns. I say that for two reasons—first, because they do not coincide with the figures which I received this morning which relate to those districts. I ask the indulgence of the House for one moment if I quote what the hon. Member gives as the unemployment figures and the figures which I received this morning from the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Leavey: I should like to finish my sentence.

Mr. D. Jones: On a point of order. Whether these figures are relevant or not, are they germane to the argument about the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Yes. The position is that certain figures have been quoted from one side of the House and it is only fair that, if they are disagreed, the other side of the House should be given the opportunity of giving a different version.

Mr. Jones: Further to that point of order. With great respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I seriously suggest that, whether these figures are right or wrong, they are not germane to the argument about the Adjournment of the House. They cannot be. With great respect, I persist.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House will be aware that I have been in some difficulty in keeping hon. Members within the terms of what I thought was in order. I saw fit to allow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to quote same figures. The responsibility was mine. Having done that, it is incumbent on me to allow contrary figures to be given, if it is so desired.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. May I very respectfully say that I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me to quote the figures, and I certainly would not wish in any way that any other hon. Member should not have the same privilege as I was accorded. I hope that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) will give his figures. What I might be allowed to say is that the figures I quoted were not mine. The figures that I quoted were given to me in the memorandum which the Town Clerk of Burnley, on behalf of the joint committee, submitted to the President of the Board of Trade. He assured me that they were official figures.

Mr. George Wigg: Further to that point of order. I do not want in any way to inhibit the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) in giving his figures, but are we not in some danger from the fact that the Chair increasingly rules in accordance with the convenience of the moment and not in accordance with the rules of the House?

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I have said anything which is out of order. I have noticed during the years I have been here, particularly in recent times, that this is an increasing habit. The interpretation of the rules is varied according to the convenience of the Executive. This is a highly dangerous procedure and could best be overcome if the Chair performed its duty to the House and did not interpret the rules as it thinks fit but only in accordance with their meaning—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: One phrase which I hope the hon. Gentleman did not mean was when he said that the Chair rules in accordance with "the convenience of the Executive". There is no truth whatever in that. The House is aware that this is not a very easy question to keep within the strict bounds of order. I have endeavoured to keep it within the bounds. I allowed one hon. Member to quote figures and I propose to allow an hon. Member on the other side to correct those figures if he thinks that that is his duty.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. If what I said is capable of any misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that I certainly have not in mind any reflection on you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as the occupant of the Chair. However, I have noticed—I should be failing in my duty if I did not point it out—that there is an increasing tendency on the part of the Chair to interpret the rules in the light of expediency rather than in accordance with their strict meaning. I think that this is—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go further along that line, because it would soon become a criticism of the Chair and this would not be the right and proper time to proceed with any such criticism.

Mr. Leavey: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would not seek to make your task any more difficult, and if it was felt by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that it was his duty to make that point I leave it with him. I simply go on to make an observation about the figures given by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I would say to him as a matter of courtesy that I studied these figures because I live almost within his constituency and work within it. I was interested to compare these figures with

those prevailing in my own constituency. The figure which the hon. Gentleman gave for Burnley was about 7 per cent. The figures which I received this morning from the Ministry of Labour read as follows: Burnley, including temporily stopped, 3·5 per cent.; excluding temporarily stopped—in other words, wholly unemployed—2·9 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's figure for Nelson was under 7 per cent. The figures I have got from the Ministry of Labour today are as follow: including temporarily stopped, 3·1 per cent.; for wholly unemployed, 2·5 per cent.
The figure given to the hon. Gentleman for Padiham was apparently 7 per cent. The Ministry of Labour's figures are as follows: including temporaily stopped, 5·3 per cent.; for wholly unemployed, 2 per cent.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Leavey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my figures. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's figures for Colne was 9·8 per cent. The Ministry of Labour's figures are as follow: including those temporarily stopped, 3·9 per cent.; for wholly unemployed, 2·7 per cent.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has sought to intervene and, although I do not wish to detain the House undully long, I shall certainly give way to him if he seeks to make a point of clarification, but not, I hope, to make another speech.

Mr. Silverman: I have already done that. As my figures have been challenged, I want to tell the hon. Gentleman—I thank him for giving way to enable me to do so—that the figures I quoted were carefully collected by Mr. C. V. Thornley, the Town Clerk of Burnley, who is also the secretary of a joint committee representing all the local authorities concerned in all these areas. Whatever the Ministry of Labour may have told the hon. Gentleman, the figures I quoted are accepted by the President of the Board of Trade in the letter he wrote only this week to Mr. Thornley in reply to these representations.

Mr. Leavey: That seems to indicate that at any rate the system of collecting the figures needs examining. Assuming that the worst is true, I hope that the


hon. Gentleman will not make it his business to make it more difficult for us in Lancashire to stop the southward flow to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in many speeches, because if we paint a worse picture than need be painted we do a great disservice to our constituencies in the North in the context of this current argument of two nations. I very much hope that those who have the honour to represent Lancashire divisions will do their very best to reverse this process. To emphasise figures—figures which I am bound to say I doubt, without being discourteous to the hon. Gentleman—would be a great disservice.
With regard to the Motion, you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have allowed us some leniency, which I do not seek to abuse. I wish to put my right hon. Friend a rather different point. I have heard the whole of the debate. It seems to me that the pleas made by hon. Members have been that the Government should not do something during the Christmas Recess without either the recall of Parliament or some reference to the House. My plea to my right hon. Friend is that he should make representations to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on a rather contrary basis, namely that he should not feel inhibited or be prevented from taking some action. I mean that he should not feel prevented from including under the benefits of the Local Employment Act, such as they are, any area which might qualify in his judgment between now and when we re-assemble. This is a rather different point from that made by hon. Members.
The point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that it is a matter of luck very largely whether one has high or low employment figures is also open to challenge. I hope the hon. Gentleman will go with me at least as far as saying that it is not just a matter of luck and in Lancashire we have adapted ourselves remarkably to the changed pattern of industry.

Mr. S. Silverman: This is a complete misrepresentation.

Mr. Leavey: Will the hon. Gentleman for once relax in his place and allow me to finish what I am going to

say? He is not seriously denied the opportunity to express his views in the House and I hope that he will allow me to express mine. I urge the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to use his good offices, with me if necessary, to make it understood by everyone just how remarkable has been the success of Lancashire in adapting itself to change; to learning new skills and attracting new industries in spite of a long and continuous background of a dwindling cotton industry. This is indeed not just a matter of luck. Credit is due to Lancashire in this respect, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will reinforce this.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker has been good enough to allow some leniency in this debate, and I reiterate that the President of the Board of Trade should not feel inhibited or in any way prevented, between the time we rise for the Christmas Recess and return, from including in the provisions of the Local Employment Act any area which, during that interval, seems to qualify.

Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. Member not realise that what I said about luck was said in a completely different context and that his remarks completely misrepresented what I said? When I spoke about things being a matter of luck I was not talking about Lancashire but about the luck of the draw, as it were, in a debate in which a great many hon. Members wish to speak about similar things affecting different areas. The luck of the draw referred to that and that alone. I feel the greatest admiration, as the hon. Member knows, for the initiative and constructive imagination which the local authorities in these hard-hit areas have expended over the years to keep their heads above water, but the hon. Member must not misrepresent what I said.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: Six years ago almost to the day—on 20th December, 1956—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) and I sought in the Adjournment debate on the Christmas Recess to press for an inquiry into the conduct of the Suez operation. We were not successful, although we did evoke the last speech made in this House by the present Lord Avon. We went away unsuccessful in


our pleas that there should be an inquiry into the facts of that operation, and when we returned we found a new Prime Minister and a completely new defence policy.
Lord Head, who was the Minister of Defence, was out of a job. We had the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—and all that flowed from that fact. In my view, the plea we made then was right and the plea I make today is equally right; that the House should not go away for a month when the defence policy of this country is in a complete turmoil. It is palpably clear, whatever one may believe the cause to be, that the Government have lost grasp of the situation. But, even more important, the country is largely in ignorance of what it is all about.
The House of Commons as a unifying force and as a platform where matters can be debated and the facts elicited, established and challenged, has changed. In past times, facts and figures could be probed and challenged until, gradually, the truth emerged. When that happened the ordinary man in the street, at the time of a by-election or a General Election, was able to make up his mind and reach his political decision in the light of those facts.
Now the House of Commons contemplates dispersing for a month when the Prime Minister, accompanied by the Minister of Defence, has gone off to the Bahamas. That in itself is bad enough, but what are the other sources of information available to the public? As times change increasing reliance is being placed on radio and television. Here is a medium which goes right into the homes of the vast majority of our people and one would have thought that great care would have been taken to ensure that the facts are objectively presented through this medium. Such subjects as Skybolt and all that goes with it are matters of direct concern to the pockets and well-being of every citizen, young and old; such matters are not merely of abstract importance.
Last night I watched the programme "Panorama". I do not have a television set in London but I managed to see the programme and after a few minutes of watching it I telephoned the B.B.C. and said, in effect, "I have not listened to

such unadulterated muck in all my life." There was not the slightest attempt at objectivity in the programme. It was based on ignorance—I will not use the word "prejudice" because it was not intelligent enough to be prejudiced—and it represented a polite version of nothing.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's remarks are interesting, but he must direct himself to the Question before the House.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not strayed a millimetre from the rules of order. I can assure you of that. It is my case that the B.B.C.; television—and I use that word in the context of both mediums—have a special duty. They have, in fact, taken over one of the functions of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should explain. I follow that this is completely valid on this Question and that it is wholly made by saying that the B.B.C. and I.T.V., or whatever it is, have failed to discharge their duty, without describing the programme and so forth.

Mr. Wigg: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I have that clear in my mind and I hope that you will allow me to finish what I was saying. The fact that they failed in their duty was an additional argument why the House should remain in session. The fact that the House has failed to discharge part of its responsibility, for that job has been taken over—and the organisations having taken it over have not fulfilled the task properly—is a fundamental reason why he should stay in session. I hope that I am making my position clear.
In any case, I turn from the use of television to the Press. We have had previous examples on other occasions when the Prime Minister has gone away. He went off on another trip three years ago and the headlines said things like, "Macmillan will talk from strength". That was about Blue Streak. In the early part of this year—and I have a great deal of sympathy with the Americans when we think of the way they were treated by a previous Minister of Defence—we had this Athens N.A.T.O. conference and we saw how the Americans were treated.
If hon. Members complain about Mr. Macnamara's reaction to their piccolos they Should have another look at the Daily Herald. On 2nd May, after the American State Department had put out the statement that the American Government had taken a certain line, we found the announcement in the Daily Herald:
Kennedy swings over to Britain's H line".
That nonsense was reproduced in The Times a couple of days later. Why? The simple reason is that the public relations department of the Government, the only part of the Government Which works full-time, had sold a line—that was the result of 20 minutes talk between the Minister of Defence and Mr. Macnamara. President Kennedy had changed American defence policy to suit our convenience.
Naturally, it made the Americans hopping mad and I think that that was one of the reasons for Mr. Acheson's speech. They have not forgotten what happened at Athens and they were making certain that, when it came to Paris, things would take place in a different atmosphere. In this connection, the last thing I wish to do is to trespass on your kindness and indulgence, Mr. Speaker, but these are not the only examples.
I urge hon. Members to recall the question of the handling of the problem of young men who want to escape from the Armed Forces by becoming or attempting to become hon. Members of this House. What happened a week ago last Wednesday? There was a sunshine story fed out by the Government's public relations department which every newspaper carried the following day. Consider the lead story in the Daily Telegraph and one would think that the whole matter would be simple and straightforward; that it would be taken in one stride. A Bill would be introduced and everything in the garden would be lovely.
However, we are still waiting and what is true of the call-up of these young men, what is true about Blue Streak and Sky-bolt, runs right the way through the whole of our defence policy. There is one thing at which the Prime Minister is a master—the game of party politics as it is played in this country. Many times he has attempted, regardless of the consequences

to the country, to steal the clothes of my hon. Friends. He won the 1959 General Election that way. But there is a settling now. That settlement is the ultimate part of the price of our weakness. The Prime Minister can go to Llandudno and present the Common Market for a great tour de force, and everything in the garden looks lovely until the Lord Privy Seal gets to Brussels, when he finds that it is a bit difficult.
It is for this reason that I want the House to stay in session, because I think it is absolutely fundamental that in every aspect of our national affairs—the Common Market, economic policy and its relation to unemployment and defence—the first charge on a democracy, and the one thing that should combine both Front Benches here, is the fact that if they want to get effective action, and if they still believe that effective action is possible, they must believe in the integrity and courage of their fellow-countrymen, and must be prepared to undertake the elementary task in a democracy of telling the electorate the truth, regardless of whether it is good or bad, and this is the theme which I have run ever since I have been in the House.
If there is a failure in the British people, if their integrity has been sapped by the Welfare State, as we are so often told it has, if they are suborned by high wages and comfortable living, then we are decadent and there is no future for us. I do not believe it. My reading of history tells me that the British people have never failed when they have been told the truth, but they are not being told the truth and they have not been told the truth.
Take the Llandudno conference and the question of the Common Market in relation to defence. Let me read some words which appeared in nobody's paper, and which were never uttered from the Government Front Bench:
In 1958, Britain tried but failed to negotiate a link with the Six based on tariff adjustments. Today, Britain must begin by accepting without qualification the terms of the Treaty of Rome, plus all of the policy decisions that have since been adopted by the Six. Her bargaining power in the Brussels negotiations is marginal.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who said this?

Mr. Wigg: I will tell my hon. Friend who said it in a moment, but let me read another passage, to surprise the Front Bench opposite about the position of our bomber force:
The British strike force is already approaching obsolescence. Its credibility as an instrument of British policy is steadily declining. Its future, if it has one, may be as a contribution to and an integral part of a multi-national 'European' force. This would seem to be consistent with the logic that is moving Europeans these days.
This never appeared in full in the British Press. This comes as a surprise to hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) asked me who said it. This was a Staff Study, prepared for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, and printed on 14th September, 1962. This was available to everyone, and this may come as a surprise, perhaps, for its startling comments escaped our Press. There is and there has been a conspiracy to blind the British people as to the realities of our defence situation, until the Government went to Athens and to Paris and were brought face to face with the facts and the truth could no longer be concealed.
I could give more examples from last week's Press on the issue of Skybolt. There has never been a beginning to tell the British public that the Americans, for example, are this year putting up 375 million dollars in order to get their B52's what they call remanufactured. There has been no attempt whatsoever to tell the people that, even if we had Skybolt, we have not got the bombers. The V-bomber, by every standard, is obsolescent, and the Americans know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On that point, it would appear that the hon. Gentleman is arguing the merits of certain matters relating to defence, and, clearly, that cannot be related to this Motion. I must ask for his help about this. I do not mind one or two examples of his proposition that people are never told the truth, but on this question there must be some limit to the number of examples.

Mr. Wigg: I am fully seized, Mr. Speaker, of the point that you wish me to take. It is that these examples must not be overdone, but I only do it to

strengthen and buttress my argument that the House ought to stay in session and ought not to be prepared to go away to await the will of the Prime Minister. As I pointed out, six years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, and myself made exactly the same plea to the present Lord Avon. We said, "Don't go away for the Christmas holidays, but stay on here to examine Suez". How much better would this country have been if the advice had been taken and if there had been an attempt to understand Why it was, leaving aside the rightness or the wrongness of it, that we were incapable of carrying through that operation.
How much would we have saved in terms of prestige and money, but we have not learned from that lesson. In 1956 we went away and back we came in January to find the Prime Minister and all his family, including the present Minister of Aviation, who had his place after double-crossing his Suez friends, still there, and we are stuck with them. Not only are we stuck with them, but the country is stuck as well. I see that an hon. Gentleman shakes his head.
Let us turn to what happened last August. We rose at the end of July, but we had not been gone for more than a few days before the Minister of Defence announced the cancellation of Blue Water. What was the consequence to the Army of that decision? No British atomic tactical weapons, no replacements for the Corporal. Last Christmas, they cancelled the PT 428, which means that there is no replacement for the Bofors and thus no modern anti-aircraft gun. Moreover, there is no sign of a replacement of our out-of-date transport aircraft. Of the "shopping list" which the Minister of Defence announced at the beginning of August, not one single item had been ordered by the end of October.
This is the situation, and the Government ask us to go away and wait until the Prime Minister comes back with one of those bromic communiqués of which he is such a superlative master. We must go off on our holidays to the end of January, the eve of the defence debate before we can ascertain and evaluate real defence facts. This is not a party matter at all. It is a matter for the whole country, because we shall soon be committed to the expenditure of


another £2,000 million, and the one thing about which we can be absolutely certain is that what the Prime Minister will be looking at is not what the effect wild be on the nation, but what the effect will be on the political fortunes of the Conservative Party. This is the fact, and I do not want to keep the House for a single minute longer than is necessary, but I do want to join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) in his plea that we should not let the Government go away.
May I say, in conclusion, and this is something I have said before, and I mean every word of it, that I do not believe that these problems can be solved by any one party. I welcome the decision of the Government to appoint a Select Committee on the question of the young men coming out of the Army. The Government are not being asked to put their pride in their pockets. I wish they would send the Service Estimates, which must now be taking some sort of shape, to a Select Committee, so that, behind closed doors, men of good will from all sides of the House, but with a majority for the Government, and with the Minister of Defence in charge and the Service Ministers there, too, could hammer out the difficulties, see whether we could maximise the area of agreement, whether we could not follow the American example and, having fought our political battle, try to elevate defence policy above party. I understand the difficulties faced by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I thought that the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Vassall case was a very wise one—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a duty. Will the hon. Member be good enough to relate his observations to the Question before the House?

Mr. Wigg: Yes, I suggest that the House should stay in session in order to do this—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Or come back early.

Mr. Wigg: No, I do not want to come back early. I do not want to go away. I want the House to continue to sit. If may hon. Friend wants Christmas Day and Boxing Day off, I do not mind, but I want the House to remain sitting, and implement the wise and valuable suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the

Leader of the Opposition in regard to to the Vassall inquiry. He then said that where the Government went wrong was that they started to give him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper the brush-off, and try to play their hand from a party angle.
I do not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do this as an act of great generosity, or in denial of the facts of political life, but our defence policy is in great danger. It cannot be put right in two years, nor in five years, because these weapon systems take a long time to plan and produce. This is one additional reason for not having a recess.
If, therefore, there is acceptance that we cannot base strategy on the success or failure of a weapon system, whether it be Skybolt, Blue Streak, or any other weapon, we have to approach the problem having in mind the basic needs which enable the country to live and prosper and exercise its influence. Against that we have to balance very limited resources, and the mare effective we try to become the narrower the resources become because, in a democracy, there is a point beyond which one cannot ask the country to go.
For all those reasons, I think that, with the policy collapse that was outlined by the Minister of Defence yesterday—something that must be regarded as the collapse and humiliation, not of the Conservative Party but of this country as a whole—we should go on sitting. I believe that the genius of our fellow-countrymen is such that if that first requirement is met—that they are told the truth—there is some hope for the future, but if the House of Commons does not discharge its job and take the steps it should to establish the facts, if we have vast instruments of communication like television and the radio being used as soporifics and not as invigorators, and if we have a Press which, by any standard of judgment, is incompetent, the future of the country and of the British people—indeed, the survival of democracy itself—might be called into question, because one of the basic and first requirements of a democrat is his capacity to make up his mind, often on very limited evidence.
That becomes even more difficult if the sources of evidence are denied, or are corrupted and polluted as they are at the present time. If that is so, then


the future is indeed black. I, therefore, hope that the House will support my right hon. and hon. Friends in opposition to this Motion.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Before the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) sits down, there is one thing I should like to mention. I purposely did not interrupt him, because I was very interested in his speech, but he said one thing that I am sure he did not really mean. He accused my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Aviation of having betrayed his friends at the time of Suez. I was very proud to have been a friend of his at that time—I hope that I still am—and I was not aware that he betrayed me.

Mr. Wigg: I did not say "betrayed"; I said "double-crossed".

Mr. Fell: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me for misquoting him, but I think that expression is just about as bad as tie first.

Mr. Wigg: I have never thought that the present Minister of Aviation played a very straightforward part in the Suez operation. If he did not double-cross his friends, I will gladly withdraw that expression, but as a matter of fact I thought that he behaved in a rather gutless sort of way.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: rose—

Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a breach of our customary courtesies towards those who have sat throughout the debate seeking to speak for the Minister not to wait until they have been heard? Is it not quite out of character, and out of keeping with the way in which we normally behave in this debate?

Mr. Speaker: That cannot possibly be a question for me.

Mr. D. Jones: I have a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I speak with some indignation if it is the intention of the Leader of the House to close this debate. As he well knows, I have been mentioned on several occasions during this debate, and my constituency has been similarly mentioned. He will be aware, also, that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has

given the House certain figures concerning my constituency. He will be equally aware that those figures have been challenged by another hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member rose to a point of order. He should be addressing me about something. I do not know what he is doing.

Mr. Jones: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to repeat those remarks because, although they were directed to the Leader of the House, I dare say you heard them—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to direct observations to the Leader of the House, he should not adopt the device of rising on a point of order, on which I heard him.

Mr. Jones: The point is that I should be heard [Laughter.] Notwithstanding the laughter, I stick to my point. If I might direct myself to you, Mr. Speaker, my reasons for wishing to speak are that I have been mentioned, my constituency has been mentioned, and certain figures in relation to my constituency have been mentioned—which figures, in turn, have been challenged by an hon. Member opposite. I feel that I should have the right to reply to those three points before the debate closes.

Mr. Speaker: I dare say that they have been mentioned from time to time, but that does not constitute a point of order.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you indicate that the fact that the Leader of the House is intervening now does not necessarily mean that the debate on this Motion concludes when he resumes his seat?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot indicate one way or the other about that.

Mr. Macleod: I am sure the House will realise that it is always difficult to judge the moment to speak, because one has to think not only of courtesy to those hon. Members who have spoken and who may wish to speak in this debate, but also to those who wish to speak in the main business of the House which is naturally—and rightly, I make no complaint—being delayed by this matter.
It would probably be most convenient if I tried on this very wide-ranging debate—as it always is, because it covers the responsibilities of many Ministries—to deal with what I might call the individual points first, and then to deal with the larger points raised, particularly, by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)—

Mr. John Rankin: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Macleod: No, I would rather not at this stage. I have said that I will deal with the individual points raised by hon. Members—

Mr. Rankin: Then perhaps I may ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Is he following the precedent of others who have intervened at this stage in these debates in the past—like the Deputy Prime Minister; merely intervening in the debate?

Mr. Macleod: I am speaking at this stage because I caught Mr. Speaker's eye.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) raised a number of points. I do not think—and I say this with respect to him—that he is right to try to bring to the Floor of the House a disagreement about what may Or may not have been said at a private meeting within these precincts.
As for the direct point which he put on the question of journeys and visits to the Yemen, I can tell him that there is a letter, which I think he now knows about, on the way to him from the Foreign Office and that in particular our representative in the Yemen, Mr. Gandy, was of course sent instructions that visiting Members of Parliament should have extended to them the normal courtesies.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) raised the question of Stewarts and Lloyds and the Whitehead Iron and Steel Company. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, of course, found that the reply to the Private Notice Question given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power was unsatisfactory. The hon. Member will not expect me to agree with him in that point of view, but one or two points were mentioned which, without interminably carrying forward the discussion which

we had yesterday, perhaps I could develop.
There was the question whether we knew the views of Richard Thomas and Baldwin in this matter. R.T.B. shareholders are, of course, I.S.H.R.A., and R.T.B. has informed the Agency of its views on this matter and we are aware of them. The particular point I was asked was how long the negotiations would take and whether they would come to a head during the Recess. I cannot be specific about this. How long the negotiations take is, of course, inevitably a matter between the companies. Certain procedure has to be gone through, and naturally, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, the powers of the Government in these matters are not unlimited. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn)—

Mr. M. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman leaving the question of Stewarts and Lloyds? Will he answer my question? I asked for a guarantee from the Government that if there was any possibility of this take-over going through before the House had had a chance to discuss it the Government would intervene. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not they would intervene?

Mr. Macleod: I said precisely that I could not say how long the negotiations would take. As for the question of information and the rest, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, in my view, made the position entirely clear yesterday. Three hon. Members referred to the statement made this afternoon—

Mr. Paget: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say that it is not a question of not knowing how long these negotiations take? What we are discussing is whether the House ought to rise for the Recess. Here is something affecting the vital interest of the country, and we ask for an assurance that if hon. and right hon. Members go away for the Recess no irremediable step will be taken meanwhile. This is an assurance which we ought to have.

Mr. Macleod: I understand that entirely, and I have said that I am not


able to give that assurance. Hon. Members, in the light of that and of the rest of my reply, will have to make up their minds about the attitude they take to the Motion before us.

Mr. I. Davies: I explained in my comments the gravity of this matter and indicated that if it goes through it implies that the steel works in my constituency is faced with closure. Surely that is serious enough to demand the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government?

Mr. Macleod: I do not deny for a moment the importance of the matter which has been raised. That, with respect, is not in dispute. I think that there is some dispute, which was ventilated in the House yesterday, as to whether this closure or merger, if it takes place, would have precisely the effect which the hon. Member has said; but naturally the question of employment is and must be one of the first concerns of the Minister in these matters.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement this afternoon about the question of ex-Service men in particular in the by-elections. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) have made some reference to it. There is a great deal of common ground between us on this. We are all agreed, first of all, that something must be done. I think that we are all agreed that it is of great importance that if there be—if I can put it this way—one just candidate amongst all those who may apply, it is, if possible, absolutely desirable to find a method that would allow such a man to put his name forward whatever the policies he wishes to advocate. This is common ground between us.
Because there is a considerable House of Commons interest in this matter, we thought it right to appoint a Select Committee. My hon. Friends dissented to some extent from this. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely put forward a suggestion about legislation. It may well be that the Select Committee will come to precisely that answer, but there are, as the hon. Member for Dudley indicated, wide repercussions in this problem, and I think it is only right that a Select Committee should examine them.

I think that we are doing exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham suggested. He said that we should find an ad hoc solution within the existing law by agreement as far as possible between the two sides of the House. With respect, that is exactly what we have tried to do.
We have had discussions on these matters and, subject to the one most important point which has been raised and which I have described as the one just candidate, I think that there is the general agreement which my hon. Friend suggested we should seek. I suggest. and I here agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, that it will be right to have a Select Committee, that we will be right to set it up at once, and that it would be right for the Committee to examine urgently and see whether it should report to the House urgently and separately on this issue.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) made a number of points about the conduct of the House and our proceedings and said that it was in many ways archaic. I am bound to say that I agree with him, although the hon. Member for Dudley took the matter into fields into which at the moment I would not wish to follow him. The hon. Member for Rossendale suggested that we should look at these matters. There is machinery in existence which can do precisely that.
It was because people felt, and I certainly felt as Leader of the House, that there was this need that we set up the Select Committee on Procedure. It is now considering a matter of great importance to us all, the question of the sub judice rule. When that is finished, there are about ten other matters which have been suggested. One mentioned by the hon. Member today is the question of taking at least part of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill upstairs. We should have to agree on the order of work from amongst these matters. Therefore, we have the machinery which I hope we shall be able to use effectively in the time in front of us now to deal with these sort of matters.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) came to an important matter which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for


Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey). The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) also made reference to it.

Mr. D. Jones: I hope to make more.

Mr. Macleod: I take the two points which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne made separately. He complained partly of discourtesy and partly of what I might call the heart of the case in relation to his constituency. On the question of discourtesy, I am sure that the hon. Member knows, and it has been my experience sometimes, that Ministers are often so enormously busy that, with the best will in the world, it is very hard to fit in engagements. He knows that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has and always has had special responsibility in these matters. Nevertheless, on this particular matter he spoke with a good deal of feeling, and I shall put the point he has made to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am very grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I await the outcome with interest and hope. I am an old Member of the House of Commons, and I have always realised that a Member cannot see a Minister just when he wants to; the Minister may have other things to do. But, in all the twenty-seven years I have been here, I have never known a Minister flatly to refuse to see a Member at all.

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman will know that I should not wish to go into more detail on this because, naturally, it is a matter about which he has more knowledge than but I have undertaken to put the point to the President of the Board of Trade.
Of the general question, there was some dispute about figures. In the spirit of Christmas, perhaps, I suggest that both sides of the House were right, although their figures differed widely. The figures given from this side of the House were, it is true, the figures which the Ministry of Labour collect and provide which we have always used in the House for these purposes. But, of,course, there is the special problem—I know this area quite well—of many people whom the ordinary net does not collect, people who for

various reasons are not insured. One of the problems, and one of the matters in dispute between the Board of Trade and the hon. Gentleman, is simply the question of what, for the purposes of the Local Employment Act, should count as unemployed. The President of the Board of Trade has said, and we have always held this view, that the wholly employed are those who for this purpose count for benefits under the Act. I think that it is really on that point that the dispute between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend has arisen. There can be no question that this is a serious problem in the area, and I do not for a moment wish to underestimate it.
I turn now to the main problems which have been put to us, questions of the Congo, defence policy, general economic policy, unemployment and so on. We had a debate on some of these matters yesterday. The right hon. Member for Belper referred to our policy in relation to the Congo and said, as part of his argument, that it was wrong for us to go away while these matters were still unresolved. But, of course, our policy in regard to the Congo has not altered. We have consistently looked for the peaceful reunification of that country. We want to see the reunification of that country. We do not recognise, and we never have recognised, Mr. Tshombe's administration in Katanga as an independent Government. But we do not believe that a political settlement can be achieved by force, and we wish to see it achieved by negotiation. This is the view which Her Majesty's Government have always taken in this matter.
As regards recent events, I should have thought that, on the whole, they were, if only marginally, a little more hopeful. I should have thought that the recent initiatives which have been taken and the response which Mr. Tshombe has made to them were encouraging. That, at least, is the view Her Majesty's Government take. On the question of whether the House should wait in suspense, as it were, for something to happen at the United Nations, as I understand it, no United Nations meeting on the Congo has been planned. Of course, it does not follow that there will not be one during the period for which it is suggested we should be in recess, but I do not know of one at present.
Equally, as regards the Common Market, we all know of the great events, the great meetings, which are to take place in a few weeks. There may well be moments of considerable importance perhaps early in February or some time like that, but by then we shall have returned and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be able to make statements to the House in the way he usually does.
Similarly, in connection with what has been said about defence, I ask the House to appreciate that these matters are being discussed in the next few days by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this country, with the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.
I return to the point I made in my short intervention at the beginning. It is always possible for the House to be recalled by the operation of the Standing Order with which the House is familiar This is done on representations made by Her Majesty's Ministers to you, Mr. Speaker. I repeat the undertaking which I gave earlier, that in this matter we should be very ready to consider not just official representations made by the official Opposition but any representations which Members might wish to put to us in these matters.
I feel, therefore, that both on the small events—"small" is the wrong word; I mean the individual matters which are, nevertheless, of great importance which hon. Members have raised today—and on the great issues which unquestionably are of enormous importance, we can rest upon the Standing Order which we have. I invite the House, therefore, to accept the Motion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that what he has just said means that there can be no question of changing the big decision about an independent nuclear deterrent for Britain without the House being reassembled?

Mr. Macleod: I said on that and on the other matters that there has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The Leader of the House is not very clear when he tells us that there is a pro-

cedure for recalling the House. The House can be recalled if something new emerges which should have the attention of the House. Nothing new has to emerge in a whole series of things which are here before us and which ought to be receiving our attention. That is the case which the Opposition puts.
We have had from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) two cases of gross personal discourtesy to Members. That is the sort of thing which happens when a Government get rattled and begin to lose grip. Ministers behave in that way.
There is the problem of Stewarts and Lloyds. Here is a vitally important matter affecting the steel industry in South Wales and possibly involving the removal of facilities from South Wales and taking them up to Corby. We are given no assurance at all that, if we go away, the Government will see that no irrevocable decisions are taken. They ask us to go away at a time when Parliament will be made incapable of doing anything before the final decision is reached. I regard that alone as a sufficient case.
There is the question of the by-elections. I have no particular objection to the solution which the Government have proposed, but why now? They had warning of this problem early on when a captain of the 16th Lancers demonstrated this method. But, as always happens with this Government, they simply allow their difficulties to pile up and then ask us for help. At this stage they ask us to give them arbitrary power to restrain the recognised civil rights of soldiers until they have been advised by a Select Committee which could and should have been working nine months ago. They say, "Let us do this arbitrarily without supervision of the House and at a time when we ask that the House shall go away." That is our objection.
Finally, I come to what seems to me to be far and away the most important question—the nakedness of this country's defences is exposed. I say "exposed", because we have been naked in this respect all along. This idea of an independent deterrent has never been anything but a pretence. This island is not


so geographically placed that it could take independent nuclear action, but this pretence has been made as a substitute for providing the country with the real defences which it needs. It should be no surprise to the Government that they are not going to get Skybolt. We told them this 2½ years ago. May I quote something which I said then
From the American point of view the approach is, 'If we do not have complete control of this major deterrent, then the British can force our hand'. They do not intend to have their hand forced. Our independence is a subtraction from theirs. It does not depend on whether we buy Skybolt or whether we do not. It depends on whether we get Skybolt. … I can assure him"—
that was the Minister of Defence—
that we shall not get it".
We all knew that 2½ years ago. I later said that all this was
a bluff, a pretence, and a playing about with things like Skybolt and things which are supposed to terrify. But the realities—the rifles our soldiers need, the mobility, the effectiveness, faith and will of an effective force—have all been sacrificed to these vain appearances".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1960; c. 563–4 and 567.]

We have been behaving like birds who substitute a display for a defence, and the disaster comes when the turkey meets the fighting cock.

That is the sort of situation in which we find ourselves. It is fortunate for us that the Americans are preserving us from the folly of Skybolt, but that fact leaves our nakedness exposed. At a time when we are posturing with this unreal nuclear capacity, we have forces which are ill-armed, ill-disposed in a geographical sense and sufficiently sick to be queueing up for any method to get out. This is the situation in which we are asked to abandon our responsibilities to the Government, which have so singularly failed in every thing that they have attempted. I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 129.

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[6.25 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cooper, A. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Aitken, W. T.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gurden, Harold


Allason, James
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Atkins, Humphrey
Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Costain, A. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Balniel, Lord
Coulson, Michael
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Barber, Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hastings, Stephen


Barlow, Sir John
Crawley, Aidan
Hay, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Critchley, Julian
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bell, Ronald
Crowder, F. P.
Hendry, Forbes


Berkeley, Humphry
Cunningham, Knox
Hiley, Joseph


Bidgood, John C.
Curran, Charles
Hobson, Sir John


Biffen, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hocking, Philip N.


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holland, Philip


Bingham, R. M.
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
de Ferranti, Basil
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bishop, F. P.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bossom, Clive
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bourne-Arton, A.
du Cann, Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Box, Donald
Duncan, Sir James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Eden, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jennings, J. C.


Braine, Bernard
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Brewis, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Farr, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bryan, Paul
Fell, Anthony
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Buck, Antony
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Leavey, J. A.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Leburn, Gilmour


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Freeth, Denzil
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cary, Sir Robert
Gammans, Lady
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, H. P. G.
Gardner, Edward
Lilley, F. J. P.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gilmour, Sir John
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Cleaver, Leonard
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Cole, Norman
Grant-Ferris, R.
Loveys, Walter H.


Cooke, Robert
Green, Alan
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn




Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Storey, Sir Samuel


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pitman, Sir James
Studholme, Sir Henry


McArthur, Ian
Pitt, Dame Edith
Summers, Sir Spencer


McLaren, Martin
Pott, Percivall
Tapsell, Peter


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maddan, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Marshall, Douglas
Pym, Francis
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Marten, Neil
Ramsden, James
Turner, Colin


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Mills, Stratton
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Walker, Peter


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Roots, William
Ward, Dame Irene


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, William


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Sharpies, Richard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Smithers, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Spearman, Sir Alexander



Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Speir, Rupert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peel, John
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Batsford.


Percival, Ian
Stodart, J. A.



NOES


Ainsley, William
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rankin, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hoy, James H.
Reynolds, G. W.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hughes, Emrys (s. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hunter, A. E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bence, Cyril
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Benson, Sir George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Blyton, William
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Boardman, H.
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Edward


Bray, Or. Jeremy
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Carmichael, Nell
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cliffe, Michael
Lawson, George
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Crosland, Anthony
Lipton, Marcus
Sorensen, R. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lubbock, Eric
Steele, Thomas


Darling, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mclnnes, James
Stones, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, Stephen


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, D.


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. New (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Marsh, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, R. J.
Wade, Donald


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Milne, Edward
Weitzman, David


Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, John
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold
Wigg, George


Crimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gunter, Ray
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, William
Owen, Will
Winterbottom, R. E.


Harper, Joseph
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence
Zilliacus, K.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick



Hilton, A. V.
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holman, Percy
Prentice, R. E.
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

Question put accordingly:—

The house divided: Ayes 198, Noes 22.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[6.34 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Arbuthnot, John
Balniel, Lord


Aitken, W. T.
Atkins, Humphrey
Barber, Anthony


Allason, James
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Barlow, Sir John




Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gardner, Edward
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Berkeley, Humphry
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bidgood, John C.
Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bingham, R. M.
Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peel, John


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Bossom, Clive
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitman, Sir James


Box, Donald
Hastings, Stephen
Pitt, Dame Edith


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hay, John
Pott, Percivall


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Hendry, Forbes
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otto


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hiley, Joseph
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bryan, Paul
Hobson, Sir John
Pym, Francis


Buck, Antony
Hocking, Philip N.
Ramsden, James


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hollingworth, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Rees, Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roots, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Jennings, J.C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cole Norman
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Hopkins, James




Sharples, Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. k.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smithers, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Speir, Rupert


Coulson, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leavey, J. A.
Stodart, J. A.


Crawley, Aidan
Leburn, Gilmour
Storey, Sir Samuel


Critchley, Julian
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cunningham, Knox
Lilley, F. J. P.
Tapsell, Peter


Curran, Charles
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Loveys, Walter H.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
van straubenzee, W. R.


du Cann, Edward
McArthur, Ian
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, Sir James
McLaren, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Eden, John
McLoughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Vickers, Miss Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Walder, David


Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Walker, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marshall, Douglas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, William


Fell, Anthony
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Worsley, Marcus


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R- J.



Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeth, Denzil
Mills, Stratton
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Gammans, Lady
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Batsford.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Lipton, Marcus
Swingler, Stephen


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lubbock, Eric
Wade, Donald


Carmichael, Neil
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Zilliacus, K.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Pavitt, Laurence



Finch, Harold
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. Emrys Hughes and


Greenwood, Anthony
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Mr. Michael Foot


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn until Tuesday, 22nd January.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne]

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES COMMITTEE (REPORTS)

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House takes note of the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament relating to the War Office and of the Third Special Report of the Estimates Committee
The Eighth Report referred to in that Amendment is the Estimate Committee's main Report of its inquiry into the War Office. The Third Special Report of this Session referred to consists of the Departmental replies to the Estimates Committee's recommendations, together with a comment on them by the Estimates Committee.
Although it is by no means unprecedented for the Estimates Committee to comment on a Department's replies and to draw public attention to the fact that it regards part of the reply as unsatisfactory, it is nevertheless unusual for the Committee to do so, and while the normal practice of not commenting does not mean that the Committee is satisfied with the Department's reply in total, nevertheless when the Committee does comment it means that it is so dissatisfied that it feels that the attention of the House ought to be drawn to this fact.
I am sorry to have to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the Estimates Committee feels exceptionally dissatisfied in this case. I want to make clear the nature of the dissatisfaction. We tried to make this clear in the comments in the Third Special Report. It arises not so much because we are disappointed with the rejection of some of the recommendations in the

Report, although this was disappointing, particularly in some cases, but from the fact that the arguments used in several of my right hon. Friend's replies seemed to us either not to meet the point in the recommendations or merely to repeat the arguments used in evidence during the inquiry, which had been carefully considered by the Estimates Committee, set out in its Report, and rejected.
If any hon. Members are in doubt about the justification for the Estimates Committee's criticisms, I ask them to compare the War Office reply on this occasion with that of the Admiralty to a similar, but actually more critical, Report made by the Committee two years ago. If these two replies are compared it will become clear to the House why we feel that this reply from the War Office did not take our arguments sufficiently seriously, regardless of whether the recommendations were accepted or rejected.
I do not want to spend time on what could easily become petty arguments about the merits of the reply. It seems far more important and constructive that we should concentrate on the substance of the Report, because very large sums of money are involved in the field into which the Committee inquired.
First, I want to make clear what was the basic objective of this inquiry. As we emphasise in paragraph (4) of our Report, the Sub-Committee was not solely or even mainly concerned with the annual cost of the War Office itself, but rather with the manner in which the War Office exercises effective control over the total cost of the Army.
The War Office itself will cost about £9½ million in 1962–63, but it is directly responsible for a total Army Vote of about £520 million. It is, therefore, the effectiveness of the control which the headquarters exercises over this much larger sum which is far more important that the cost of the headquarters itself, and everything in the Report is directly related to this over-riding principle.
Is the organisation of the War Office as at present constituted the appropriate one for the effective control of such an enormous sum of money? I want, if I may, to deal in outline with four of the main features of the War Office organisation which caused us most concern from


this point of view. I hope that other hon. Members will have a chance to amplify some of these points in greater detail, and of course also to take up other points which I shall not mention.
The first major feature is the question of the top levels of administration in the War Office. Without judging the efficiency of any large organisation controlling expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, I think the House will agree that it is natural to start by looking at these higher levels of administration.
In this respect, it seems to us that continuity of management, as well as high quality in the people who are in the top positions, is a cardinal requirement for efficiency. The most striking feature about the War Office is that 80 per cent. of the top level posts are held by military personnel who, on average, do not stay more than three years, and often less, in any particular post. The House will therefore realise the extent of the rapid turnover which takes place at the highest levels in the administration. We believe that this cannot be in the interests of efficient administration.
As an example of this, I should like to take the case of the development of the Chieftain tank. In the case of this major project, most of the senior War Office staff concerned with it had already changed at least twice at the time of cur inquiry. It seems to us inevitable that further changes will have taken place before the project is completed.
Let hon. Members think what that means. Let them translate the development and production of this tank into the development and production of a new motor car, and let us take the recent case of a relatively new British motor car, say, the Jaguar Mark 10. What do hon. Members think would have happened to that? Would it have been on time? Would it have cost mare or less had the people responsible for the production and technical decisions changed several times during the development and production? One has only to translate what this rapid turnover means into a form of production such as a motor car, which is more familiar, to realise that it must lead to serious inefficiency.
The Estimates Committee expressed similar and serious disquiet about this lack of continuity at the time of our inquiry into the Admiralty two years ago. The Committee's cancan expressed in that Report has since been strongly supported by the Zuckerman Committee on the Management and Control of Research and Development. We felt that we made this recommendation with even greater weight and greater authority behind us in the case of the War Office than we did two years ago in the case of the Admiralty. Yet, I am sorry to say, in its reply the War Office appeared far less ready to correct this weakness than was the Admiralty.
The Estimates Committee realises that this is a difficult matter in a Service Department. We accept that there must be a large proportion of officers in senior posts in the War Office, or any Service Department. We accept that serving officers cannot stay indefinitely in one post. But this is a matter of balance and we are in no doubts that at the moment the balance in the War Office is wrong, and seriously wrong.
The greater continuity which we believe to be vital to efficiency can be achieved in a Service Department in two ways. The first is by increasing the length of the tour of duty of the senior officers concerned, and the second is by the introduction of more civilians into senior posts. That is why we recommend both these things. They are complementary and I stress that they in no way represent a prejudice against military personnel holding senior posts in the headquarters organisation. They should hold such posts in considerable numbers, but if they are to do so, measures must be taken to provide far greater continuity at the administrative and technical levels than has been the case in the past if we are to get the weapons we want at the cost we can afford and if we are not to have some of the frustrations which we have suffered in defence in Britain in recent years. I repeat that it is the serious view of the Estimates Committee that greater continuity in tap management is absolutely essential if we are to achieve better administration, stronger control of expenditure and, consequently, better value for money.
I should now like to turn to a second subject, the control of research and development. This was the subject of one of the most important sections of the Committee's Report. The cost of research and development falling on Army Votes alone runs at something more than £14 million a year, but in addition there are substantial sums carried on Ministry of Aviation Votes for work done on behalf of the Army. The House should also be aware that much of the details regarding this kind of expenditure and much of the evidence on which our conclusions were based could not be published for security reasons.
It was immediately clear to the Estimates Sub-Committee making the inquiry that the system of control of research and development which had existed in the past, both in the old Ministry of Supply days and since in the War Office, was unsatisfactory. To take an old example, hon. Members will no doubt recall the dismal story of the Champ vehicle, which was abandoned in 1954 after an expenditure of about £16 million. We followed the progress of a current conventional project which, for security reasons, we referred to throughout our Report as Project X.
This project started seven years ago and has now reached an advanced, but by no means final, stage. We discovered that authorisation for the research and development programme had been given without any estimate of the likely total production costs. As the project continued, the cost became so alarming that it was necessary to reduce the number of units to be supplied to the Army. We were assured that in future this sort of situation could not occur, and I think that we were satisfied that there had been improvements in the system of control, which we welcomed. However, it seems to us extraordinary that whereas Treasury authorisation has to be secured for expenditure on projects costing more than £50,000 when given to outside contractors, no estimate has had to be produced for work carried out within the Government's own research and development establishments.
A system of project costing has now been introduced into the War Office Research and Development establishments

but, as a War Office witness told us in evidence,
previously there was nothing other than a statement of staff deployment to show how the resources of the establishment were being employed".
and that intramural costing could not have been introduced since
there were no documents from which estimates of intramural costs could be made".
A Treasury witness informed the Sub-Committee:
I think in one recent case we were given some indication of cost".
That is, intramural costs.
I think that it is right that the Estimates Committee and the House should be gravely concerned that such a rudimentary system of financial control should have been permitted to last for so long Had there not been recent improvements in this respect, I can assure the House that our comments would have been still more critical. But even when the present position has been further strengthened by the extent to which the War Office has accepted our Recommendations Nos. 15, 16 and 17, the degree of control may still leave something to be desired. We sincerely hope that the attempts to improve the system of control will be zealously continued.
The third of the four subjects to which I want to refer involves the number of committees in the War Office. This is another feature of War Office organisation which struck us forcefully and unfavourably. We found them in almost every part of the administration. This inevitably created a suspicion in our minds that there might be a lack of a clear division of responsibility between different branches, and also that individual responsibility, which is a most important feature of good management, is too often replaced by management by committee. We therefore recommended that the whole subject of internal committees should be reviewed.
This is one of the recommendations which my right hon. Friend accepted in his reply, and we welcome that. But we cannot help being a little sceptical about the practical effect of this acceptance when we consider his reply to our other recommendations in which committees were involved, notably in connection with establishment control and costing policy. I want to take briefly the example of


costing policy. In this case the Estimates Committee recommended the appointment of a Director of Costing to replace the present Costing Policy Committee—a Committee set up in September, 1961,
to develop the use of costing as an aid to management and to approve an annual programme of costing work.
This Committee is composed of very senior officers, military and civilian, and it has met only twice in the first eight months of its existence. This field of costing policy seemed to the Estimates Committee clearly to be one of management, in which direction of policy should be continuously applied by a single responsible individual and not by a committee of high-level, busy officers meeting twine in eight months. But this recommendation was rejected by the Secretary of State and the principle of management by committee was upheld.
The fourth subject to which I want to draw attention is the need for a fundamental inquiry in the War Office. In view of the three main matters to which I have already referred, and others which I have not had time to mention, it became clear to us during our inquiry that the time had come for a fundamental review both of the structure and function of the War Office, comparable in scope to that of the Esher Committee of about 60 years ago. To begin with we were encouraged to think that such a review might already be under way, by a committee known as the Committee on War Office Organisation, set up in September, 1961, to undertake
a radical examination of War Office organisation.
That phrase, "a radical examination of War Office organisation", is a direct quotation from the evidence we received. Moreover, the War Office stated in evidence to us:
it is probable that radical changes cutting deep into long-established charters and responsibilities will be required and that it will be necessary to re-examine the basis of the distribution of duties throughout the War Office.
With this the Estimates Committee wholeheartedly agreed.
But—and I am sorry to say that it was a pretty serious "but"—we subsequently found that the Organisation Committee, which should have been dealing with

radical changes cutting deep into long-established charters and responsibilities
was a relatively junior fact-finding sub-committee, which did not appear to us to have the status or authority to take a fundamental look at the existing organisation in the way in which the War Office itself said was required.
Furthermore, the War Office Reduction Committee, to which the sub-committee reports, meets irregularly. It has had only 12 meetings in five years, and has a constantly changing membership. It is a committee of eight people, but there have been no fewer than 14 changes of membership in five years. This is another example of the lack of continuity at the top to which I referred earlier. If, as the War Office acknowledges, a really fundamental review is required, surely it should not be given to a committee which meets only occasionally and whose composition changes so rapidly.
That is why the Estimates Committee recommended that a new committee—replacing these two existing committees—consisting of very senior military and civilian officers, should be appointed forthwith,
to make an intensive study of War Office organisation in every aspect.
I underline the words "in every aspect." We warmly welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of this recommendation and the setting up of a committee under the distinguished chairmanship of General Sir Archibald Nye.
In view of our welcome for the acceptance for this recommendation it may at first sight seem rather odd to the House—and rather unreasonable to my right hon. Friend—that we should have made some critical comment in our observations upon his reply on this point. I want to explain why, because this may show him why we were dissatisfied with substantial parts of the reply. The wording of the reply to the recommendation for a fundamental committee of inquiry is a typical reason for our feeling of dissatisfaction.
We had recommended that this new committee should
make an intensive study of War Office organisation in every aspect",
but in his reply the Secretary of State says that the committee
should be appointed to make an intensive study of War Office organisation with particular but not exclusive reference to that part of


it dealing with equipment, research, development and production.
It is true that those terms of reference did not exclude anything, but they seemed to us to indicate that the study was to he slanted, not on every aspect—as we had recommended—but particularly on certain limited although important aspects. That is what caused doubts in our minds.
These doubts were increased when we saw that Recommendation No. 2, dealing with the important matter of the length of tours of duty of Service officers at headquarters, had not been referred to the Nye Committee, although Recommendations Nos. 1 and 3 had been. So we began to wonder how comprehensive this committee of inquiry would be. That is why we considered the reply not to be wholly satisfactory, and why we wanted to know more about it.
Since then I have been allowed to see a copy of the terms of reference of the Nye Committee. The principal one reads as follows:
To examine the functions of the War Office, its organisation and the distribution of duties within it, and to report to the Army Council".
That is exactly what the Estimates Committee wanted. Knowing that, I can tell my right hon. Friend that we wholeheartedly welcome the acceptance of this recommendation. If only the Estimates Committee had been informed that these were the terms of reference no doubts would have been felt or expressed about it in the first place.

Mr. George Wigg: What does the hon. Member mean when he says that he was allowed to see the terms of reference? Was there anything confidential about them? Could not this information have been obtained by putting a Question on the Order Paper? Is this some special privilege accorded to the hon. Member?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will deal with this in his reply. I do not believe that any special privilege is accorded to me. The members of the Estimates Committee feel, however, that in their special position as servants of the House these terms of reference might have been communicated to them so that they in turn could have reported them to the House, but I do not want to stand on dignity about

this. What matters is that I am satisfied, and I believe the House will be satisfied, that this Recommendation of the Estimates Committee has been accepted in the full spirit in which it was made. That, I believe, we should warmly welcome.
In conclusion, I refer to our final recommendation in which we suggested that the Minister of Defence should institute a comprehensive review of the present system of separate Service headquarters. We mentioned the fact that the introduction of a system of unified commands as envisaged in the 1962 White Paper gave strength to the argument that there should be greater coordination and integration at the centre in defence matters.
The Estimates Committee in the last three years has inquired into the headquarters organisation of two Service Departments, the Admiralty and, now, the War Office. As a result we have come to feel that it is desirable to have a far more comprehensive examination of the whole system than we can undertake as an Estimates Committee with our limited terms of reference. Such an inquiry should ask the most fundamental questions about the suitability in modern conditions of the present structure of having independent Service headquarters. I am sorry that the reply of the Minister of Defence to this proposal was, to say the least, not very forthcoming. The 1958 system, he stated, is perfectly appropriate and it was suggested, by strong implication, that the subject is closed.
I note that The Times of 4th December described our dissatisfaction with this reply as "understandable". I leave it there, except to say that it seems that the Estimates Committee, the House of Commons which it serves and the taxpayers, whom we represent, each have the right to be assured that the present system is the most efficient and economic that can be obtained. I am afraid that the Minister's reply does not appear to recognise this fact.
Our Report was critical in some respects and I realise that my speech in introducing it has been critical in some respects. That is the duty of the Estimates Committee and the House, provided that criticisms are well considered as far as we are able to consider


them and are matters of substance. It should also be said that our Report contained more than just criticism. There were many aspects of War Office organisation which we thought were good and which we praised in our Report. Although, naturally, in discussing this matter one concentrates on the critical aspects, it would not be fair to the War Office or to this House to leave unstressed the fact that there was considerable praise in the Report as a whole, which we believe was highly deserved.
I should also not wish to end my speech without on behalf of the Sub-Committee thanking those officers and officials of the War Office who assisted the Sub-Committee throughout this inquiry. I have now had the privilege of taking part in a number of these inquiries. In them we have witnessed much courtesy and co-operation, but their courtesy and co-operation reached the highest levels I have experienced in this sort of inquiry. I particularly thank the Permanent Under-Secretaries, Sir Richard Way, who was the main witness and gave a great deal of time to the business, and General Sir James Cassels and his staff at B.A.O.R. Headquarters, who received us and gave us helpful information.
It would be appropriate on behalf of the Estimates Committee to put on record the formal thanks of the Committee and, I believe, of the House, for the work that has been done by the Clerk to our Committee in preparing the Reports. As Chairman of one of the Sub-Committees of the Estimates Committee, I know very well that without a first-class Clerk it is doubtful whether any report would be produced, certainly no report of any quality. My final word is to register thanks to him.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I am very glad indeed that we have this opportunity of debating this Report of the Estimates Committee, because I think it desirable that when the Estimates Committee has reported, if there is real dissatisfaction, as there is in this case, with the replies from the Department concerned, the matter should not be simply allowed to rest there but we should have an opportunity

of pursuing it by debate in the House.
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) closed his speech by paying tribute to a number of people who helped the Estimates Committee in its work in this inquiry. In turn I pay tribute to him as Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee which carried out the inquiry. Anyone who has served on the Estimates Committee will know that the work could not be done unless the Chairmen of the various Sub-Committees were exceptionally diligent and persevering in their duties. Much falls on the Chairman of a Sub-Committee. The hon. Member in this case carried out his duties in an absolutely admirable manner. The particular quality for which I pay tribute to him is perseverance. Because of his perseverance we are having this debate this evening.
I do not want to cover the ground he has covered so adequately. My main remarks will be directed to two particular aspects of the Report in which considerable dissatisfaction with the War Office replies is expressed. One is on the question of auditing and the other on costing. I may also say a word on another subject the hon. Member mentioned, but on an aspect of it which he did not mention. That is the question of the staffing of the War Office and, in particular, the efforts made to get reductions in headquarters staffing.
There is a Committee on War Office reduction and a Sub-Committee which works under that main Committee. The unfortunate thing about the efforts which have so far been made for War Office reductions is that they are made almost exclusively in the lower levels. This is brought out graphically by the table printed on page ix of the Eighth Report of the Committee referring to military personnel changes between 1960 and 1962. The other ranks in that period came down by 22 per cent., and captains and majors by 7 per cent., but when we turn to the details about lieutenant-colonels to generals we find there was an increase.
This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the War Office administration. I suspect that it may also be true of other Service headquarters. There tends to be a continuing preponderance of


very high-ranking officers at headquarters and the rest of the staffing tends to get completely out of balance.
The reason for this, or one of them, is the very simple one that these Committees on reduction tend to be comprised, on the whole, of high-ranking officers, with a result that their actions are much less drastic when dealing with high-ranking officers than with people lower down the scale. I do not believe that we can get an adequate War Office organisation unless something is done about this imbalance. The principal things about which I wish to speak are auditing and costs, but perhaps I may be permitted to say a few preliminary words.
Generally the main expenditure of the War Office, or any other Government Department, follows policy decisions, and there is no substance in the belief that one can make any considerable reduction in total or percentage terms in costs simply by looking at administration compared with what could be done were there a change of policy. Nevertheless, it is one of the particular tasks of the Estimates Committee to look at the control of expenditure once policy has been decided, upon. In the control of expenditure, as distinct from the control of policy, there is of course a considerable field for economy.
The second thing I wish to say is, as may be known to a number of hon. Members, I am myself an accountant and it may seem therefore in what I have to say about the approach of the War Office to auditing and costing that I am suffering from a feeling that the amour propre of the accountancy profession has been offended by the reaction of the War Office to our recommendations. I should say right away that what I shall have to say does not only represent my own personal view or opinion, but is the unanimous opinion of the Sub-committee and of the Estimates Committee as a whole.
Regarding auditing, we made what I thought was a mild recommendation, Recommendation No. (9), of which the main points were that the War Office should take steps to establish qualified accountants in the branches under the Controller of Audit and Accounts where at present there are none, and for the

position or Controller of Audit and Accounts the possession of accountancy qualifications should be an important factor. It is extraordinary that in these three branches of the Controller of Audit and Accounts there are no qualified accountants. Not even a stray one has managed to get into any of these departments.
This is particularly strange, because one of the Departments deals with the auditing of command expenditure, and this command expenditure represents very big money. For example, if one takes B.A.O.R., the total expenditure is at least £100 million, and the locally controlled expenditure alone as distinct from any expenditure which may be controlled at the War Office is no less than £45 million, which includes a considerable component for expenditure on civilian labour recruited on the spot in B.A.O.R. and controlled exclusively, or almost exclusively, from there. I do not believe that any private firm in this country, or any nationalised concern for that matter, which spent anything like the amount spent on this one command would have the same attitude towards internal accounting which is adopted by the War Office. The attitude was that, despite the large sums of money involved, the recruitment of staff with professional qualifications was irrelevant, and I repeat that I do not believe any private firm would adopt that view.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Perhaps my hon. Friend can assist me further on this point. I was intrigued by the answer of the War Office to Recommendation (9):
Nevertheless the normal Army accounting systems are so different from the commercial accounts with which a professional accountant has to deal and on which they have been largely trained that it is considered that the expertise of professionally qualified accountants would be largely wasted in the three branches under the Controller of Audit and Accounts. …
Does that in fact mean that the accountancy system of the War Office is so obsolete as to be unrecognisable by a trained accountant?

Mr. Millan: I have taken a rather more charitable view of what the War Office means. Nevertheless, I suspect that there is a good deal in what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend.
If one is to be assured that the accounting system is not obsolete, the easiest way to obtain that assurance is to have some qualified accountants bringing their professional expertise to bear on the system. My interpretation of this paragraph was that the War Office in effect said that accounting at command and unit level was so rudimentary—a simple matter of a receipts and payments system or something of that sort—that professional accountants would not be required to audit the system. One does not want to have a proliferation of highly qualified accountants doing routine work and checking the sort of routine receipts and payments which the units probably keep. Nevertheless, the War Office report is fundamentally misguided on this matter, because a good deal of internal auditing work, even in a private firm, consists of looking at and checking, at local and branch level, what are rudimentary accounting systems.
To give an example which crops up in practice, how much detail should an auditor actually carry out in the checking of accounts? Should he check simple accounts in detail or should he do something else which might be called auditing in depth? I wish to assure the Secretary of State from my own experience—and any qualified accountants would say the same—that if unqualified personnel were given the work of checking rudimentary accounting such as one might find in the accounts of Army units, a proper balance would not be obtained between the mass of detail which has to be carried out and the other account checks which should be carried out at the same time and which are often a good deal more effective than detailed checking by unqualified people. On this matter I speak from personal experience. What normally happens is that there is far too much checking rather than too little, and a good many other checks which would be detailed checking would not be carried out at all.
The other point is that it would result in an ossified accounting system. Once the pattern had been laid down it would be followed by successive auditors year after year on the good old system that one auditor copies what was done the

year before. That is what happens if unqualified people with no technical training or professional expertise are given the job of auditing the kind of rudimentary accounts which the Secretary of State seems to have in mind.
There is another aspect of command auditing to which the Command Secretary, B.A.O.R., attached considerable importance. He said that as well as doing detailed work the auditors were there to give financial advice. Once one starts giving financial advice to local unit commanders and so on it helps if there is a certain amount of professional expertise available. I am not suggesting that this need be at local level, but I am suggesting that in any Army organisation there ought to be qualified people to see that effort is not being wasted and that the Army is getting value for money—to see that auditing is effective in bringing out wasteful or even fraudulent expenditure, as must sometimes arise in this kind of auditing.
I have no doubt that the staff involved do the best that they can, but there is a need for some professionally qualified people. The Secretary of State has completely misread the position and misinterpreted the kind of recommendation which we made. We do not want a proliferation of accountants but a certain minimum of expertise to be available at a fairly high level to give direction to the auditing policy.
The same kind of general criticism is made about costings. Mention has been made of the recommendation that the present Costings Control Committee should be supplanted by a Director of Costings. There is a tendency in the War Office to appoint committees to do practically everything which is required to be done. I am speaking as an ordinary member of the Sub-Committee, and I think that the greatest difficulty which I found in the whole inquiry was finding a way through the masses of committees, usually with long-sounding and impressive titles, which seem to abound in the War Office. The War Office seems to be built on committees and absolutely nothing else.
In costing, one will not get direction in the Army costings system unless there is somebody at the top with an overall responsibility for costing. We recommend


this in our Recommendation No. 11. This was turned down for what we consider to be inadequate reasons by the Secretary of State for War. He seemed on the whole to be quite well satisfied with the Army costings system. As is brought out in our Report, the costings effort is to be reduced rather than increased in the Army, as one means of cutting down Army expenditure, and there was a general bias in the evidence given on behalf of the Permanent Under-Secretary on the question of costing. There seemed to be a distrust of the professional expert. There was a feeling, "Do not let these professional castings experts loose in the Army as we do not know where it will stop". For example, there was the attitude of the customer-salesman relationship, with the various Departments of the War Office being customers for costings and the costings experts being salesmen trying to sell costings measures to the various Departments against the wishes of the Departmental heads. This is a false and misleading way of looking at the relationship which ought to be developed when any professional expert is involved.
There was also a criticism by the Permanent Under-Secretary in evidence that the trouble with costing was that one tended to have useless information brought out by means of costing exercises, and that the exercise was continued indefinitely in time with useless information being drawn out that no one was using. But this is the very thing that one gets when one has not qualified people directing the effort. What happens is that someone expresses an interest in a particular item of cost or a particular analysis of cost and there is an ad hoc—or what is meant to be an ad hoc—inquiry carried out to get the information, but it does not become ad hoc because the people lower down the line who have to do the exercise keep it in being month after month and quarter after quarter and year after year, and it is by this time useless information because no one higher up takes a careful look at the kind of information which is brought out and says that this ought to be stopped and that they ought to do something entirely different. This lack of professional expertise leads to the very complaint which the War Office made in their evidence.
There is another aspect of costing to which the Secretary of State ought to pay some attention. There was a tendency in the evidence which we were given from the War Office to look at costing simply as an exercise in analysing expenditure in ever-greater detail; as if instead of having some items divided into two, they were to be divided into 20 or 30 heads. This is only a small, and I consider on the whole an unimportant, part of costing. The whole point about costing control is that there should be some control of expenditure and that one should have some idea of what the expenditure should be and should be able to relate actual expenditure to it and to see where things are going wrong and where money is being spent unnecessarily.
If the War Office would look at this very much more from the point of view of budgetary control than from the point of view of analytical costing, which is all they seem to know about in the War Office, we might get something much more profitable on costing. The staff Which they have on the job looks inadequate; apart from a substantial number of people on the Royal Ordnance Factories there is very little costings effort in the Army and few of the people who are engaged on costings have the professional qualifications which they ought to have.
There have been some glaring examples of wasteful expenditure in the past in the development contracts and one hopes that they will not recur in the future. There is a quite artificial distinction between what the War Office call intra-mural and extra mural—in other words internal and external—expenditure. There seemed to be an idea that it was very necessary to control external expenditure but that it did not matter very much what one did about internal expenditure. The attitude seemed to be that the expenditure was incurred anyway; the buildings and staff were there and it did not matter that the costs should be broken down over particular projects. This is a misguided way of looking at the problem.
There are some improvements which are to be made. The Secretary of State referred to them in reply to the recommendations, but even these do not go nearly as far as they should. On the question of the costings sheet, it has


been decided that action should be taken on all these quarterly costings sheets—unfortunately we could not publish this point in the Report; the Secretary of State has made a big concession in that against actual expenditure for a particular project he intends to show estimated expenditure in the case of projects costing more than £250,000. But of course, the estimated expenditure must be know without any difficulty at all for every project. Why should estimated expenditure not be published for every project? It is not something which has to be calculated or which changes —or one hopes that it does not keep changing continually? We know this at the beginning. Why should it be only every project over £250,000?
The fact that the War Office put such a point forward in reply to our recommendation shows how little they have grasped the points which we were putting to them about the attitude to costing. In view of the War Office Memorandum on Costing, which we print on page 100 of our Report, one can only be very unimpressed by the kinds of costing which the War Office says it is carrying out at present. One does not get the sense that the War Office is working on the same level as the Estimates Committee on the question of costing. Our recommendations on costing, as on auditing, were extremely marked. I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State for War did not see fit to accept them in total, as he could quite well have done.
There are certain aspects of the War Office administration that we thought were good. I am not sure that we got to know as much about organisation and methods and work study as we might have liked, but obviously the War Office put some effort into organisation and methods and work study. Even there, one feels that there should be co-ordination between organisation and methods, work study, the Inspectorate of Establishments and the costing effort. The War Office is not really grasping in the way it should the necessity to ensure that there is as stringent a control over expenditure as can possibly be operated.
I find the greatest difficulty in understanding what the rôle of the Treasury is in controlling Government expenditure. I put that down to start with to in-

experience on the Estimates Committee, but now I am not so sure that it is inexperience. I am not so sure that the Treasury itself has any real idea of what its rôle is with regard to the control of Government expenditure. On project costs, for example, the Treasury has to give its approval if a project is to cost more than £50,000. At that point the Treasury comes in. However, in the whole field of War Office expenditure—command expenditure, expenditure at headquarters, expenditure everywhere—the Treasury seems to play a very minor rôle indeed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend arguing that the Treasury takes a greater interest, say, in the Scottish Office or the Ministry of Health with a view to curtailing expenditure than it does in the War Office?

Mr. Millan: I do not know whether that is true. As a Scottish Member, I am not in favour of the Treasury taking any interest in Scottish Office expenditure. I take an exception to that. Apart from that, the principle holds good. As to the War Office and other Departments, we ought to get the rôle of the Treasury defined.
I have been talking about two particular aspects of the control of expenditure, auditing and costing. Has the Treasury a responsibility for ensuring that the individual Government Department orders its affairs rightly in fields like this which are directly concerned with the control of expenditure, or has it no interest in the detailed way in which the Departments go about their operations? In their evidence Treasury witnesses are continually saying that they are disturbed about the inadequacy of this or that control. The question which we have to ask the Treasury is, "If you are disturbed about it, what are you doing about it?" The answer clearly is that it is doing absolutely nothing in practice about it.
There is no Treasury spokesman here tonight and all our criticisms are therefore directed at the Secretary of State for war. I have a certain sympathy with Departments in their relationship with the Treasury and their not knowing exactly where their responsibility ends and where the responsibility of the Treasury starts. The previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is now


the Minister of Education, talked at various times in his former position about, for example, the need for professional expertise in Government service. One sees absolutely no sign that the Treasury takes the slightest interest in that when it comes to the kind of things that we have been discussing in the Report and in the debate this evening. Quite apart from our questions about the War Office, if we could get some enlightenment on that aspect of Government administration those of us on the Estimates Committee would be very grateful indeed for the opportunity that we have had of having this debate this evening.

7.45 p.m.

Captain John Litchfield: Nearly half the recommendations in the Report refer to the financial aspects of the War Office. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milan) spoke with great authority and experience on these aspects. I think he said he was an accountant. The fact that I was able to listen with such interest and comprehension to an accountant speaking about finance indicates the breadth of his knowledge on this part of the Report. I cannot match the hon. Gentleman's experience as an accountant. I propose to deal chiefly with other aspects of the Report.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) on the Report and on his presentation of it this evening. It is a valuable Report, of which I am one of the signatories, but I must admit that I signed the Report with some reservations, which I expressed to the Estimates Committee at the time and which I should like briefly to develop now. Reports of the Estimates Committee rightly attract a good deal of attention outside the House, if not always inside the House. What is said by hon. Members, and even party spokesmen, in the House tends to be a little suspect sometimes as being angled by party political considerations, but the Reports of the Estimates Committee are all-party Reports in which party politics never enter, so far as I know. What is more, they are based on evidence, albeit sometimes rather scanty evidence.
I should like to sound a note of caution about this, for three reasons. First, it must be admitted that not all members of the Estimates Committee are necessarily expert or have had very

much experience in the matters which they have under consideration. Secondly, the Estimates Committee is a part-time Committee which meets once or twice a week and the evidence which it hears is necessarily limited. Thirdly, the time of the officials who come before the Estimates Committee, often no doubt at some sacrifice to their other duties, is also limited.
The fact remains that the Estimates Committee is a powerful body. Recently it has become even more so. It is regarded inside the House as the watchdog of the House, keeping an eye on the expenditure of public money, while the rest of the House can get on with more exciting and important subjects, such as the dates of our seasonal Adjournments. Without doubt, the Estimates Committee has done in this Report and in the others with which I have been associated a valuable job. There are very great benefits to the State and to the House in Departments feeling that (there is a powerful body representing the House ready to breathe down their necks, even if the process is not always altogether welcome to them. What is more, it is important that Departments should wonder whose neck should be breathed down next. It helps to keep them on their toes.
The work from the point of view of the members of the Committee is of absorbing interest and considerable educational value to those who have the privilege of being on the Estimates Committee. It is especially agreeable to serve on a Committee in the House in which party considerations are not, to say the least of it, paramount.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. and gallant Member give an intimation of how one gets on to this Committee?

Captain Litchfield: My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) could probably answer that better than I. I do not think that one gets on to it necessarily by acclamation or vote. I think that it is partly merit, partly integrity and chiefly luck.
It is important that the Estimates Committee should take care not to overstep the border between what one might call the investigation of specific inefficiencies which have led to money being wasted and questions of how a Department of


State actually conducts its affairs and organises itself. There are some dangers in going too far in making sweeping recommendations affecting the organisation as opposed to the specific question of finance in great Government Departments.
I sometimes wonder whether in the Estimates Committee we are not tending a little, perhaps unconsciously, to become a sort of image of the United States Senate departmental committees, however pale a shadow we may now be. Some say that to become such would be a good thing. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House suggest that we should have functional, all-party committees of that kind in this House, but we have not reached that position yet and there are strong arguments both for and against doing so. On the whole I think that I would be against it in general.
The American system of Government is entirely different from ours. Undoubtedly it is vastly inferior and more extravagant in the expenditure of public money, but perhaps it can afford to be. The various Senate committees are an integral part of the American system and they have immense power. I very much doubt if this House would delegate that sort of power to any Committees of this House. On the other hand, Ministerial responsibility as we know it here is absent in the United States system. Ministers or Secretaries of Departments there are not responsible to Congress but to the President. Here Ministerial responsibility is a cardinal factor in our system of Government and I believe that it should be most firmly upheld.
Returning to the Report under discussion, it seems that it is to Ministers and not to any other body that we should look for the running of Departments when considering efficiency, organisation and weaknesses. It is for them to seek out and repair extravagance, inefficiency or faults in administration. We should hold Ministers, as I think we broadly do, responsible for what goes on, whether it is bad or good. There are many committees which have sat over the years within the Departments of State. I speak with greater personal knowledge of the Admiralty than of the War Office, but I do not remember a time when there

has not been some body, either an internal Admiralty body or something brought in from outside, which has not been investigating the organisation and administration of the Admiralty.

Mr. William Ross: What happens to the Reports?

Captain Litchfield: It is not as simple as that. Sometimes we have committees of investigation set up—and, no doubt, the same is true of the War Office—and conducted by the Secretary of State, the Permanent Under-Secretary, sometimes by high serving officers or people brought in from the business world outside and possibly a judge. They have not really been very successful in reducing numbers or making really drastic economies, and that is why I cannot help feeling some doubt about whether,a Report which makes such sweeping criticisms and suggestions such as the one under discussion—considering especially that it is based on a part-time study—should necessarily be accepted without, at any rate, the note of caution I have tried to sound.
I wish to deal with only a few of the recommendations. First, Recommendation No. 1 states:
The number of military officers holding senior positions in the War Office should be reduced …
I am sure that we should all like to see that done, but that is, to some extent, a matter of judgment. That is not the sort of thing one can lay down as law without being inside the place. Certain dangers are involved. I remember that, not as a general but as the equivalent of a brigadier, I was looking through the files in the old days, 30 or 40 years ago, finding that my side of the house—namely, naval operations, which involved a far greater number of ships than the Admiralty controls today—was handled by a much smaller staff than exists today. I am sure that staffs breed staffs in Service Ministries. I do not disagree with that recommendation, but it is a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State as to whether it would be sensible to reduce their numbers arbitrarily.
The second recommendation states:
The length of the tours of duty of senior military officers in the War Office should be increased.
Much the same recommendation was made in regard to senior officers in the


Admiralty and the House agreed with the Committee. But there are certain facts one should bear in mind when considering the length of tours of officers in the Service Ministries. I am sure that the Committee would not wish to support the tenure of the late Duke of Cambridge who, I think, was Commander-in-Chief of the British Army for 40 years, beginning with the Crimea and ending up with South Africa. Continuity can be overdone and it is not always the hallmark of efficiency. Senior officers must be catered for in this respect in a proper way in order to bring vitality, urge, freshness and drive into administration and prevent senior officers from becoming office minded by being chairborne for too long.
The third recommendation to which I wish to draw attention is Recommendation No. 3, which states:
A study should be made of the practicability of making more senior positions in the War Office open to civilian as well as to military officers.
Again, I am against sweeping observations of that kind when they are put forth after an investigation of this scale and with the weight of so powerful a body as the Estimates Committee behind them. Nor in this particular case do I say that this recommendation is really supported by the evidence which was taken. I may be mistaken, but that is the feeling I have after studying the Report with some care.
These are matters not only of personal opinion and judgment, but also of personal experience and knowledge of a Department and of its day-to-day running. One thing, however, I am sure about in my own mind, though it is certainly not supported by any evidence produced to the Committee. To the best of my own experience, which is quite a long experience, I would say that there is not one single Department in Whitehall, and certainly no Service Department, which could not afford some pretty drastic prung. Therefore, I think that an investigation of this kind is highly valuable, whether or not we fully agree with the recommendation, and whether or not the Secretary of State fully accepts an investigation. An investigation, by being an investigation, has great value.
When I held one particular job in the Admiralty which involved being respon-

sible for a large number of staff both inside and outside the Admiralty, and we were ordered on the Prime Minister's order, I think, which came through the Board of Admiralty, to make an arbitrary 15 per cent. reduction, about a month before the Korean War broke out, my Director—I was Deputy-Director—sent for me and said "This is utterly impossible". I replied, "Far from it; I think I could do it, and make it a 25 per cent. reduction, and not a 15 per cent. one, simply by blue-pencilling." If these reductions could have been made, they would have resulted in improvements, but the Korean War broke out at that time and, rather than contracting, we expanded. Very often, a blue pencil is the best possible friend of those who want to make these reductions without asking too many questions.
I now pass to one more aspect that concerns the actual numbers of the War Office staff. I hope that this investigation will, to some extent, result in a numerical comparison between the staff in comparable jobs in the Admiralty, following on the previous report of the Committee, and the staff of the War Office. I do not think I have been able anywhere to see the kind of figure that I should have liked to see, and I have made one or two albeit very sketchy investigations myself.
I find that in round figures, according to the Report, the staff of the War Office includes 39 generals and 875 military officers below the rank of general. The comparable figures for the Admiralty, so far as I can glean them from the current Navy List, are 22 flag officers, equivalent to various kinds of general—about half the number—and about 300 officers of lower rank in the Admiralty, against the 875 officers—that is, about one third of the War Office total. The Admiralty numbers include not only the Admiralty establishment at Bath and the dockyard administration inside the Admiralty, but the whole of naval aviation and the whole of naval weaponry as well. These figures may have been looked at by the Secretary of State, and perhaps my right hon. Friend would look into them himself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham referred in his opening speech


to management by committees, and I agree with every word he said. There is a very great need for decentralisation, on the one hand, and personal, individual responsibility, as I think he will agree, on the other. This was never brought home to me more than when we were planning the operation of Overlord, the cross-Channel operation, when I alone was the representative of the Admiralty on the Cross-Channel Committee, and I had nine brigadiers representing the War Office on the other side of the table.
One result of that was that the Admiralty, when asked questions, was always able to give a broad immediate answer, although one stuck one's neck out, whereas the War Office representatives, after a preliminary huddle between the serried ranks of the brigadiers, had to say that they would go back and consult their various departments and give the answer next week. I think that shows, as an example from a long time ago, that there are advantages in clearly defined responsibilities, as far as possible, and in centralised responsibility in one person.
One of the points that is not included in the Report but which interests me and has always done, is one which I hope my right hon. Friend will find time to look into. It is the question whether the War Office in the senior ranks is overloaded with acting ranks, and whether the jobs which are at present held by senior, military officers, from colonel downwards, are comparable with jobs in the Admiralty and the Air Ministry held by the same or lower ranks. I think that this is a question which should be looked into.
I have always observed that, although the three Services are supposed to be equated nowadays, rank for rank and pension for pension, the Army makes a great deal of use of acting ranks. I will not mention brevet rank, but when I was at the Imperial Defence College, we had seven captains, R.N., and seven brigadiers from the Army, none of whom were really brigadiers at all. Three were majors and the other four were lieutenant-colonels. I see no reason why they should have been made brigadiers, with a brigadier's rate of pay, in order to go to the I.D.C.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the last recommendation of the Committee, which in some respects is the most general recommendation. It is that the Ministry of Defence should institute a comprehensive review of the present system of separate services organisation and so on. No doubt, if Skybolt is off, there will have to be a very radical reappraisal of the whole of our defence organisation. I do not doubt that, but I think it is premature at the moment to offer any constructive thought on that aspect of our defence organisation.
I appreciate the desire very frequently expressed by some hon. Members on the other side of the House to achieve the maximum integration of our defence services, but I think that we must take one or two considerations into account. Again, it is not just a matter of a paper plan or a blue-print under which, if we were starting afresh, we could find a better way of running things. We have first to remember that the Services have their own traditions which, usually, are helpful. They do not impede progtess, and they are traditions which we in this House should try to encourage rather than the reverse. I doubt very much whether the time has yet come to think of fusing the Services into a single Service, but whether we may, conceivably, before very long, come to two Services instead of three is perhaps a mare profitable line of thought when we know more about the Skybolt situation in a month's time.

Mr. Wigg: When is the Royal Navy to disappear?

Captain Litchfield: That is interesting, though I do not really agree, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue it on the Floor of the House. The Navy is only one of the three Services likely to be concerned.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to have two Services in the future. Obviously, the Army is all right, and I presume that he is now in doubt about the future of the Royal Navy.

Captain Litchfield: I think we could have a most instructive debate on that, but if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not fallow the point any further at the moment.
There is one other point I want to make which the Estimates Committee has not fully appreciated, in regard to the integration of Service headquarters in London. The Admiralty is an operational headquarters as well as an administrative Department of State. In that respect it is quite different from the War Office or the Air Ministry. That makes it mare difficult to fuse a Department that is partly operational with two other Departments that are not operational.
One of the great values of debating these Reports, even if there are not many hon. Members present, is to turn the attention of the House to these matters. Investigation, and the exposure to what is someimes adverse criticism, helps to keep Departments on their toes, and that is a very right and proper function of this House.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: First, it is a pleasure to thank the Estimates Sub-Committee for this most valuable Report. I spent the weekend perusing it in some detail, and my admiration for the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) increased as I did so. As I read his investigations, I was forced to the conclusion that he had chosen the wrong profession, and that if he chose to change it lie ought to do well because of his ability and perseverance in cross-examination. I am sure that the whole House is grateful for his speech, and for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milan) who brought his expertise in accountancy to the service of the Sub-committee. We are also grateful for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield).
My first conclusion is that in the War Office there is a vast and complicated financial superstructure. There are illogical divisions in research and control. There are inadequate check points on expenditure, and the system of control is unsatisfactory. Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for Mitcham himself said. Further, the accountancy system is too archaic—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) used the word "obsolete" —for ordinary accountants to be of any use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Craigton asked whether the accountancy system is so archaic that no private firm of accountants could be employed. In this age, when we need a modern Army with a modern headquarters to control it, it seems inconceivable that the War Office system of accountancy should be such that ordinary accountants cannot be employed in any capacity to control or direct it. The observations of the Secretary of State for War did not rebut the Committee's recommendations in any way and are an admission that the system of accountancy is too archaic and obsolete for ordinary accountants to be of any use.
The observation of the Secretary of State on Recommendation (9) reads:
Nevertheless the normal Army accounting systems are so different from the commercial accounts with which a professional accountant has to deal and on which he has been largely trained, that it is considered that the expertise of professionally qualified accountants would be largely wasted in the three branches …
concerned. That seems to be a fantastic conclusion, and there is no real rebuttal of the strong case made out by the Estimates Sub-Committee on this point.
Looking at the numbers employed in the War Office administration, it seems that the Department has become a convenient means of finding employment for a large number of senior officers, and I will return to that aspect later. Further, the system adopted by the War Office to reduce its numbers seems to have been the most naïve possible. Instead of looking at the matter from the organisational point of view, as I understand is now being done, the Department looked at it purely from the point of view of numbers.
Instead of seeing which people could be dispensed with, the Department seemed to think of a number—in this case, 7,000. It was admitted by one witness who was examined by my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton that the number "thought up" was 7,000, and it was then sought to reduce the staff to that figure. Instead of having a balanced reduction in the various grades, the War Office made a reduction in the clerical and lower branch staff. Instead of a balanced reduction, there was a reduction in typists and tea boys. That can hardly be the right approach. Further, there seemed to be a multiplicity


of committees dealing with establishment matters, while the inspectorate of establishments appeared to be seriously understaffed.
There appears to be a need for a fundamental inquiry into the whole of the War Office, its administration and set up. The Department cannot in this modern age maintain itself as a sort of sacred cow that cannot be interfered with. I am pleased to see the wide terms of reference of the committee under General Sir Archibald Nye, which has now been approved by the Estimates Sub-Committee, and by the seniority of its members. Having regard to the remarks that have been made about the junior status of the members of the Organisational Committee and the Reductions Committee I hope that this new committee will have sufficient seniority to enable a proper appraisal to be made of the functions and needs of the War Office. If we have a modern Army, we must have a modern headquarters, and without a proper inquiry the system will remain as archaic as it is now.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea has spoken about responsibility. The responsibility for the present state of the War Office is undoubtedly that of the Secretary of State. I do not suggest in any way that he has been entirely responsible for the build-up of the War Office to its present state—that is the accumulation of the debris of centuries—but, in his present capacity, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Department as we find it now, and all these recommendations and severe strictures made by the Estimates Sub-Committee prove that in the end the chickens have come home to roost on the broad shoulders of the Secretary of State, who is answerable to this House, to the country and to the taxpayer for the present state of affairs in the Department.
I thought rather strange the cavalier manner in which the Secretary of State attempted to answer the considered recommendations of the sub-committee, whose members expended prodigious energy. They held twelve meetings at which they had witnesses before them. Extensive memoranda were put before them and, as I have already indicated, there was exceedingly thorough and pertinent cross-examination. The result

is that of the 21 recommendations, four have been accepted in total, the need for an inquiry has been accepted, and there is set up this committee under General Sir Archibald Nye.
Then there are a further eight recommendations which I understand are broadly accepted, though two of these only to a certain extent. But nine of the recommendations are completely rejected and undoubtedly the Sub-Committee has cause to be dissatisfied with the observations and the manner in which the Committee has been treated. Having regard to the labours which the Committee expended, I am sure that it has the sympathy of the House in its dissatisfaction. As the Committee properly says, it is dissatisfied not so much with the rejection of some of the recommendations as the fact that in many cases the observations do not meet the points made in the Report and in some instances merely restate some of the arguments already made to the Committee.
There is no rebuttal of the case made by the Committee. The Committee has heard the evidence and come to certain conclusions, but those conclusions are not considered by the Secretary of State or those responsible in the Treasury for the replies as worthy of a rebuttal. Far too frequently the replies are a rehashing of the very points made by witnesses before the Sub-Committee itself. Indeed the whole of the Government's observations in an attempt at a rebuttal of the Report are contained in just under 300 lines. That is what the Committee's thorough and patient investigation seems to merit from the Secretary of State for War.
Frequently when an inquiry is started on any point or on any charges made it is suggested that such and such a thing will not happen now. It is said that there have been changes recently. That point is made time after time in the evidence of witnesses. When we consider Project "X" it was stated categorically in the evidence that that kind of lack of estimating would not happen now, but it seems rather strange that a project of that kind should be started and, as the hon. Member for Mitcham indicated, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton, there was no real estimate for the project and no idea how much it would cost, apart from control on the number of staff involved. Is this lack


of estimating confined to this project? Are those others in the same category, or can we be assured that if an Estimates Sub-Committee makes inquiries in five or ten years' time it will not have disclosed to it other matters which are going on now and have not been remedied? I am glad that points were made about improvements in the War Office, but I shudder to think that there may be other skeletons in the cupboard which may be revealed in five or ten years' time if another inquiry of this kind is held.
The rejection by the Secretary of State of the point made that the length of tours by senior military officers should be extended seems to me fundamental. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the whole point of the need for continuity. It is not only the Estimates Sub-Committee that is making the point. It is supported in its recommendation by the previous recommendation of the Zuckerman Committee, a point which was made by the hon. Member for Mitcham.
Question 533 in the Minutes of Evidence asks:
While admitting the tremendous importance of user experience being injected into these departments, need it be injected at what I might call the managing-director level?
The answer was:
I think it should be.
It is rather strange that when senior officers are appointed to these posts in the War Office it should always be insisted that they should have had recent experience in these active posts and that they should be turned around like musical chairs for two or three years. If a large firm in this country were appointing a managing director, as for example Schweppes, would it insist that the managing-director should have had recent experience on the factory floor or some other level? I am sure that, having regard to experience, a company would not find it necessary always to have people of that category though they might be found occasionally to be useful.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that it is much easier to manage Schweppes than a modern scientific and technical armed force?

Mr. Paget: Jolly lucky for Schweppes.

Mr. Morris: I will not enter into that discussion. We shall see in due course.
The fundamental point is made by the Sub-Committee that there should be greater continuity and, as part and parcel of the general recommendation, that there should be more civilianisation. As the hon. Member for Mitcham said, it is a matter of balance. All these matters should be considered, and we have the instance of the development of the Chieftain tank. Here had been already several changes and that there would be several more before the project was completed and we had the tank in large numbers in the Army. It can do no good to the project itself. The comparison made by the hon. Member with the development of the motor car was realistic. It was agreed by the Permanent Under-Secretary in his evidence Ito the Sub-Committee that while it was a good thing for the person himself in the matter of his career it was not always a good thing for the job. That is the conclusion to which the Sub-Committee rightly came.
We are not going the right way about having a modern efficient head quarters. It seems that the Army instead of being a pyramid is a cone or square and that jobs have to be found for senior officers. It seems that the War Office, following a sort of Parkinson's Law, has built up over the centuries a number of posts. I am sure that the War Office would be better off if there were fewer of these people in these posts.
I have dealt with the question of the target and I am sure that we shall have SOM.; observation from the Secretary of State for War about the methods by which the reduction of personnel to 7,000 was achieved, but it is significant that the reductions so far achieved seem to a large extent to have been at the lowest levels of staff. There was strong cross-examination on this point and the Sub-Committee was not satisfied.
A close perusal of the Report shows that the whole concept of military organisation in this country is in danger of becoming outdated, if it has not become so already. There is here the accretion of centuries. If one were to look at the position today and apply the acid tests, how much of the present system of the War Office would remain and how many of the present personnel?


I am sure that the answer would be that very little of the present system would remain and there would be far fewer than are at present employed. Obviously, there are difficulties in starting afresh—

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): Will the hon. Gentleman explain that most provocative remark? I do not mind what he says about me, but I hope he is not including the generals, the officers, the junior people and the civil servants who work in the Government Department. I think that he had better make himself plain, because what he says is rubbish.

Mr. Paget: There are far too many of them.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman said that if we started again there would be few of the present people left. That is an indictment against the present people working in my Department, and I will not have it.

Mr. Morris: The Secretary of State has misinterpreted the questions which I was putting. I was speaking, first, of the system and, second, of numbers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not interpret any interventions which may be made by others as part of my contribution to the debate. I was commenting, first, on the system and, second, on the number of personnel. I made no reflection on individuals. If it could be thought that there was any innuendo in what I said, the Secretary of State will understand, I am sure, that I should wish at once to withdraw it.
There is, I believe, a need for an appraisal and I hope that the Nye Committee will be able to conduct it, looking at the matter from the fundamental standpoint of what are the real needs of the modern Army and of the modern administration. There is an immense financial superstructure in the War Office which is able to probe and keep control over very many small things, but it seems, nevertheless, that some of the larger fish get away. There have been developments of systems, of project X, of the Champ many years ago, and other comparable projects where even the immense financial superstructure which there is has not been able to probe and

control research and development effectively. That is the stricture made by the Sub-Committee, that, even though we have all these arrangements there is an inadequate system to control research and development.
A point is made in the Report about the difference between extra-mural and intra-mural control. While there is control over extra-mural expenditure, that is, expenditure done by somebody other than the War Office, if the War Office itself does it there is not the same control but only control over the numbers of staff involved. This seems extraordinary. We understand from the hon. Member for Mitcham that the Sub-Committee was gravely concerned that there should be such a rudimentary system of control.
Perhaps at this stage the Secretary of State intends to justify this division which has continued over the years. He is responsible to the House for the division between extra-mural expenditure and intra-mural expenditure and the different degree of control.
Although there are several other matters with which I should like to deal, I know that many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I shall detain the House no further save to reiterate my thanks for the admirable work which has been done by the Sub-Committee.

8.32 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Considering the critical tone of the debate, I think that the actual language used has been friendly on both sides throughout. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) in all his conclusions, but I must congratulate him on having done his homework this weekend to a quite remarkable extent. He has studied the Report very fully and has made a number of points on it. It will be an added pleasure to the House to know that the hon. Gentleman's speech had the further merit of shortening what I have to say.
Although this is a critical debate, there is underlying it a very great feeling of goodwill. The Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee which conducted the exercise had many military witnesses before it and visited several Army headquarters. I think I can say


without qualification that the Committee was impressed by the quality of the people it met at all levels on those occasions. That goes for the War Office as well.
People do not change their skins when they move from B.A.O.R. to S.W.1.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They change their salaries.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: In some cases they change their salaries, but the fact remains that we have an Army which is efficient for the tasks which fall to it. I consider my own very limited military experience when it comes to comparing the difference between sending an expedition to Dakar during the last war, when there was no information about Dakar in the War Office except a very old Michelin Guide, and the immediacy with which this little operation in Brunei was undertaken. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has not got his teeth into the question of Brunei yet, but no doubt he will. I would say as an outsider that the moving of more than 1,000 troops overnight promptly, safely, satisfactorily and to the right place is something to be proud of. The fact that we can do it in Brunei must mean that we are capable of doing it in any one of a hundred different places. It follows from all this that, whatever we may think of the War Office, the way in which the Army works is satisfactory, within these limitations.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is rather gloomy that any aspersions we cast on the War Office will be extended to the whole Army. The first thing that should be made clear in this debate is that we are criticising War Office organisation and not invididuals. The strength of our criticism is increased by the fact that we consider the end product to be remarkably good.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Gentleman's point that it is even more to the credit of the Army that it operates in spite of the War Office?

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: That remark has been echoed by serving soldiers throughout the years, and I see no reason to suppose that it is any different today. I do not think that anyone at the sharp end of the Forces will have their morale reduced in any way by the aspersions

that we may or may not cast on the War Office.
I want to give up the battle of flowers for the moment and return to the purpose of this exercise, which is based on the fact that the study which the Subcommittee of the Estimates Committee gave to the War Office organisation seemed to the War Office to have been very largely wasted. I want to develop particularly the point about the service in the War Office, which has been commented on for the third time. This was dealt with by the Select Committee on Estimates in the Session 1959–60 and later by the Zuckerman Committee. The Zuckerman Committee stated that:
Lack of personal continuity in the higher positions from which operational requirements are controlled is bound to have its effect on much of the research and development designed to meet the requirements of the Services.
This statement came from the Estimates Committee in the first place and was re-echoed by this Estimates Committee.
It does not appeal to the War Office, whose doctrine was laid down by the Permanent Under-Secretary, who said in answer to question No. 531:
I think it is not long enough, purely on its own merits; but there are other considerations, considerations of careers, and ensuring that the officers who are going to senior appointments in the Army get a variety of experience. Probably from that point of view, it would be a bad thing if they were left too long in one job, although from the point of view of the job atone, as opposed to their own interests and the interests of ensuring a variety of experience at the top of the Army, I think three years is not enough.
He went on to say in answer to question No. 532:
It is very important to have what we call user experience in these high military appointments.
That is all very well, and I have no doubt that at the time of Agincourt the user experience that dictated the use of the longbow as against the crossbow was crucial in determining the issue of the battle. But what user experience have officers today of ballistic missiles? We go to great expense to get scientifically-trained officers into the Army. Having got them there by attractive rates of pay, surely we should use them for purposes for which their abilities can be put to the best advantage.
I cannot really believe that people's careers are being disadvantaged by their


staying in the War Office or in the department of the Master General of the Ordnance. I cannot believe that they are enhanced in any way by their being posted to an ordnance depôt. The job of these people is to use their scientific thought and ability, which we have paid for, to benefit the Service they are in. I do not believe that they can be usefully assisted by a major general with great experience of airborne landings—which I am glad to say we have got—if in fact their task is the provision of weapons to be used in some five or ten years' time.
Professor Zuckerman has said more than once that with him, if it works, it is out of date. This is the truth about these weapons. It is pathetic for the War Office in 1962 to harp on user experience in dealing with the creation of new weapons of which there can conceivably be no user experience. This is an absolutely false argument, and it does not pertain to this day and age. If this sort of argument were deployed by fighting troops, it would get shot down very quickly. I feel that the fighting troops have learned a great deal of flexibility. There is great flexibility in the command situation.
I think that some of the points which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Lichfield) made about the "pongos", as he did not term them, but which I think underlay his statement, have been taken into account. I think that the planning staff so far as one can judge from outside, is functioning now and the responsibility is properly shared out. But why do the War Office still feel that user experience of longbows really is valuable in choosing weapons of the next ten year—because they are weapons of the next ten years—and particularly can it be a reason for taking away from the War Office people who have experience in these particular scientific techniques which cannot be learned overnight? I should like to press on my right hon. Friend that this is something that has been adversely commented upon three times and it should not go on being commented on another time. I am certain that if that rule is not changed, it will be commented on adversely again.

Mr. Paget: Is not the real truth of this that two quite different things are

being looked at? These people are not there for the benefit of the War Office; they are there for the benefit of providing careers for officers.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I do not take that point.

Mr. Wigg: If I am being quoted, what horrifies me about this doctrine is this. It seems to me that if we are to get a weapon or a system of weapons which is being assessed scientifically or at the higher level and then try it on the troops without it being evaluated, we shall run the risk of a breakdown at the vital point. There are many things that work in the laboratories and under test conditions—a good example is the Ross rifle in the First World War—but when they come to be tried in action they break down. For that reason I think that it is vital that there should be troop evaluation. I am not quite sure if that was the point which the hon. Member made.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: No. I think that the hon. Member for Dudley is also in the age of the longbow. We are talking in terms of rifles and those are terms which we all of us understand —some of us know all too much about them. But these are instruments which we do not understand, and if we get scientific officers to evaluate them I should like to have scientific officers in the War Office where they can do just that.
I turn now to a question which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), and I should like to pay my tribute to him. The value of this Report is the value that one gets out of it. I think that everyone will agree who has studied his cross-examination how very detailed and thorough it is and how very well he has been able to lead witnesses, and I would echo the words of the hon. Member for Aberavon on this subject that perhaps he has misjudged his career.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman went a little far in talking of the Army entirely on a business basis because, as my hon. Friend rightly said, there must be a question of balance. When we come to establishment control, this is a case where balance simply has disappeared. My experience of establishment control was gained during the war.


I had to argue before an Establishments Committee at the War Office whether the particular organisation in which I was interested got a batman driver. I was given very short shrift. I was confronted with a hanging jury determined to give away no batman drivers. This is evidently not the case today. There is a proliferation of committees, and this is a point which my right hon. Friend missed in his reply. He did not appreciate the number of committees which seem to deal with establishments.
Why is there a need for establishment control? The fact is that as long ago as 1957 the War Office decided that it would reduce its numbers. It gave itself an arbitrary target of 4,000, which was subsequently increased, after the abolition of the Ministry of Supply, to 7,000. What has happened since 1960? There has been an overall reduction of 576 in the total War Office numbers. This is about 6½ per cent. In the same period, Vote A, Serving Army Personnel, has been reduced by 64,861, which is about 20 per cent. In the case of War Office civilian numbers, which were reduced by 437 between 1960 and 1962, no less than 430 were clerical and typing grades. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham commented in Question 866:
We cannot help getting the impression that either the high level policy departments were very lavishly supplied with staff or that the important people are planning and writing things out in longhand!
That L the inescapable conclusion of a reduction of 430 in the clerical grades, but this is not a true reduction, as I shall show.
There have been transfers of 360 staff from War Office Vote 3 to War Office Department Outstations Vote 4, and had it not been for these transfers Vote 3 numbers would have increased by 100. As presented to the Committee, it became clear that the apparently satisfactory rate of reduction in War Office numbers was due to reductions being made only in the lowest military and civilian grades, and, secondly, the transfer of staff from Vote 3 to Vote 4, in which the numbers have risen by 2 per cent. since 1960. This is a performance of which one cannot be proud, and it is right that there should be some establishment control, but how should this be done?
I have taken the trouble to draw up what appears to be a family tree, and reporting to the Army Council which is responsible for everything, one has on one side a Director of Establishments who is responsible only for civilian staff, and on the other the Charter Directors who are apparently so grand that they never meet at all. In Question 204 my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) asked:
How often, for example, do the Charter Directors meet?
The answer was:
The Charter Directors do not meet as a committee at all. They tend to deal with things by minute.
As my brother is now a Charter Director, I had better watch my step. I am sure that the Charter Directors perform valuable functions, but they cannot be considered to constitute an active committee. Reporting to them is the Establishments Committee which deals with certain grades and under which is a Subcommittee dealing with the lower grades.
Each of these Committees has a liaison officer from the Director of Establishments who seems to have no responsibility other than reporting to the Director of Establishment what is going on. If there is serious disagreement with any action of the Establishments Committee or 'the Establishments Sub-Committee, no doubt,the Director of Establishments can take it up with the Army Council—it could not go lower—but apparently that has not been done.
In addition to this, we have the famous Committee on the Reduction of the War Office, which was instituted in 1957. under which is the Committee on War Office Organisation which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham mentioned very clearly as having the duty of radical examination of War Office organisation, but which sits under an assistant secretary. It is not recruited at a level where such a radical examination of War Office resources could be carried out, or, if carried out. implemented.
Recommendation 5 of the Estimates Committee was:
We therefore recommend that the machinery for regular establishment control over War Office numbers should be reviewed, with the object of reducing the number of


committees concerned with establishment matters, and of increasing the authority and control of the Director of Establishments".
My right hon. Friend's reply to that moderate recommendation was:
regular establishment control of War Office numbers, although it has a sub-committee to deal with the lower level appointments. Matters which are outside the scope of, or cannot be agreed by, Establishments Committee are settled by the Charter Directors"—
who never meet—
or, if necessary, by the Army Council. This machinery has been in operation for many years and has worked well.
Si monumentum requiris circumspice. For the benefit of those with a Winchester education, I would roughly translate that as, "If you want to see the headstone of the good working of the Establishments Committee, look at the War Office numbers." It is added:
It is not seen how the authority and control of the Director of Establishments can be increased beyond its present level".
The Committee made some suggestions about that, but apparently they were not particularly popular. One of them, which seems reasonable, came in Question No. 220 when the Chairman asked:
Where do proposals for changes in establishments originate?
to which the answer was:
From the branch or directorate concerned".
Perhaps that is a clue as to why so few reductions in establishments take place. Question No, 221 was:
Are not most of them arising from the top and being forced downwards?
to which the answer was, "No".
It is not human nature for people to recommend reductions in their own establishments. I cannot believe that the War Office can efficiently function on the basis of expecting to get a useful establishment control by awaiting suggestions from the branches. There must be some body in the War Office, and we hope to make it the Director of Establishments, who is interested in this matter, because without interest the point is lost.
If we can induce into the War Office that same sort of flexibility and agility of mind which we admire in the serving troops, not only will the debate not have

been wasted, but we will have had what will prove to be a very valuable Parliamentary day which can influence recruiting figures only upwards.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I was rather interested in the hon. Member's remarks about the chartered directors. In Question No. 209 of the evidence in the Report of the Estimates Committee they are described as a machine. No doubt the hon. Member remembers that description.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) for the grand work that he has done as Chairman of the Estimates Committee. In its examination of War Office witnesses this Committee has brought out a point that is not often realised, namely, that the War Office, with its responsibilities for our military defences today, is probably the most complex scientific and technical institution in this country. There is a terrific amount of highly technical scientific work being done in the defence services. The questioning of War Office witnesses brings out the overall picture of this very complex institution, which carries with it a good deal of overhang from an age when military matters were not so scientific and technical as they now are.
In Question No. 131 reference was made to the decentralisation of the War Office departments which are now in the County of London. The witnesses gave evidence that the War Office in London was split up into different buildings; that accommodation was very difficult: that London was overcrowded, and that it was difficult to have the proper liaison between offices which are miles apart. At the end of the answer to Question No. 131 it is pointed out that
The centre of London is becoming more crowded, and it is more difficult to find office buildings in it.
If that is the case, is it not time that we decided to get the War Office out of this overcrowded area? If the Secretary of State for War gets in touch with hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies they will be able to tell him exactly where he can put the War Office.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do not bring it to Ayrshire.

Mr. Bence: Edinburgh will suit us. It would be quite adequate to bring the War Office from this overcrowded area to Edinburgh. We have buildings available in Edinburgh. It is a lovely city, in the centre of beautiful country. We can assure those residents in London who now serve on the civilian staff of the War Office, travelling to work in crowded buses and trains, that if the War Office is moved lock, stock and barrel to Edinburgh it will be to their cultural advantage and will improve their efficiency.
My other point concerns research and development, and the turnover in the tours of duty served by officers and by civilians. If my memory serves me right, it is five years for civilians and two to three years for serving officers. I have had no experience in the Army, but I have had experience in an industry manufacturing goods for the Army and for War Office departments. Before I left the industry we very often had projects coming from the War Office, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aviation which were most difficult to manufacture—because an important feature in the design of any project, for any purpose is the possibility of its efficient, accurate and speedy manufacture.
It may be that "waste" is the wrong word to use, but at any rate much of the high cost of development involved in a project is often caused in the design stage, through the failure to ensure not only that it can be used but that somebody can manufacture it. There has been mention of the crossbow and the bow and arrow. Probably in those days, when the question of armour or chain mail arose, and someone thought of the idea of using it in defence or attack, the problem which confronted the planners was whether the blacksmith could make it.
In the Admiralty there is a close liaison with shipbuilders. There is an Admiralty Committee on the Clyde. But in the Report of the Estimates Committee in Appendix I there is a reference to the Weapons and Equipment Policy Committee, the Combat Development Committee, the Logistic Development Committee, the Equipment Quantities Committee and the Committee on Capital Facilities for Scientific Establishments. I do not see one which is

connected with industry, and yet that raises the most important and difficult problem of them all.
The most difficult problem which faces industry is that of producing a project which has been demonstrated and tested. Often this proves to be a most wasteful operation. I well remember that in 1939 we discovered difficulties in carrying out a manufacture according to specifications which we had been given. But before we could introduce the necessary modifications the matter had to be submitted to the Ministry of Supply which was then under the direction of Lord Beaverbrook. I recall that we were given a specification in relation to the shell platform for a gun magazine. It proved impossible to work to this specification and I remember the discussions on the matter because I was on that occasion the production engineer.
In my opinion there should be a subcommittee, including a production engineer of the highest quality, to deal with the production of weapons and other devices manufactured for the use of the War Office. It requires someone with an idea of the problems relating to the mass production of such projects.
In the Report there is mention of witnesses who gave evidence regarding tours of duty. I speak from the industrial point of view and with experience of what goes on in a factory. From that point of view, to refer to a tour of duty lasting for three years in connection with, the development of a project is just not good enough. It is not sufficient that a team engaged on a certain project should include a person whose tour of duty may last for five, six, seven, eight or ten years. It is necessary to have a team which works together continuously. If the membership of the team is changed it is likely that psychological difficulties will be encountered.
Industrial research and development promotes complicated and difficult problems which have to be faced by committees dealing with the production of the sort of dangerous and highly sensitive instruments which are used in war time. So the continuity of teamwork and the cohesion of a team is more important in that respect even than in regard to manufacture in private industry.
Mention has been made of motor car production. The company for which I work included men on the staff who had been with the company since 1917. I myself worked for over 20 years with that firm and often in company with the same people. That sort of thing is common in private industry in good organisations. It is essential to have that set-up in the development and research associated with the creation of new ideas or the evolving of a new project. Even there it is not so vital as it is in regard to the production of projects for the War Office, the Admiralty or the Air Force where highly-technical and dangerous weapons are needed.
Therefore, the idea of a tour of duty in connection with this sort of research and development is wrong, and I think it should be altered. Perhaps it would be better if more civilians were brought in. Perhaps the main team should be composed of those with experience in the use of military equipment; those who know the context in which the equipment will be used.
People of high calibre from industry engaged in production techniques at the top level should be brought into these committees, perhaps on a part-time basis. If they were brought in I believe that millions would be saved because the projects would be developed in co-operation with the people who produce them. I emphasise what happened in my own experience. I shall not mention the project, but I remember one in 1939–40 which cost £2½ million to develop and £41½ million to tool and get into mass production. I am certain that, had production engineers been brought into the process of evaluating the prototype, much of that money could have been saved in the production process.
I appeal to the Secretary of State for War that in this problem of linking up development and evolution of a prototype through all stages, production engineers should be brought in from centres of production where the product is likely to be made. The War Office will not produce these projects; it will put them out to contract. For goodness sake, let us have some co-operation and co-ordination so that there will not in future be the frightful waste there has been in the past because at that level there has

not been full consultation with the War Office or the Air Ministry with production engineers concerned with modern techniques of the production of this sort of thing.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I wish to join my voice to what has been said in regard to the performance—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Paget: That seems to have taken two of the five minutes I had available to me. I was about to say how much hon. Members on the Committee should be congratulated, both on its work and on their performance in the House today. We have heard a series of quite admirable speeches from members of the Committee who applied their minds to this subject.
The only point which I shall make—and I shall make it very shortly—concerns the last of our recommendations, and one which I believe is the most fundamental of all—that the time has passed when we should have separate defence Ministries. The time has come when we should have a single Minister of Defence responsible for the Services. That seems to me to be the primary conclusion here.
The other conclusion is one in which I have a certain amount of sympathy with the War Office. A tremendous attack has been made on them, for it is almost unprecedented that a Committee should reply with such scathing comment upon the Ministry's answers; but I believe that these answers which were so patently inadequate are perhaps more the fault of the Treasury than of the War Office. Here we have a system in which expenditure is supposed to be watched and controlled by the Treasury, but it is a system which within the complexity of the modern Service Ministries has completely broken down. It does not work. I believe that the time for Treasury control here has gone.
We no longer start from Estimates and build up to a total; we start from a total and build down to expenditure. What happens is that the Cabinet decide what can be devoted to defence. There follows the apportionment between the Services by the Minister of Defence, but in


fact it is a process of hand bargaining between the Chiefs of Staff, and that hard bargaining is directed far more as to the need for the particular Service which they are serving than as to the defence requirements of the country. We then get, a figure allocated to the Services. At that point we have the preliminary Estimates. These are only a bid for a share, Then it all begins. When the share comes, there is the breakdown as to what the expenditure is.
There are tremendous disadvantages here. There is no rational distinction between capital and income expenditure. There is the hand-to-mouth problem that there is very little point in putting in labour-saving devices which may save in future years but will not affect the year's Estimates. There is a problem of backlog, and over and above that there is the frightful delay. This is what worries me more than anything. Under this system it takes two years for proposals to get even into the Estimates. That is the fundamental reason why what we get is obsolete even before we get it. To take the simplest example, I do not know whether the Army has its first transistor, yet nobody outside the Army has a radio which works by anything except a transistor. We get delay and obsolescence.
I think that the accounting officers of the Services should be responsible to the Minister of Defence, and not to the Treasury.
Defence expenditure is settled arbitrarily by the Cabinet on the basis of a lump sum which our economy can afford and our foreign policy demands. The Service Estimates are derived from this predetermined total, and this being so the real purpose of Treasury control has gone. The Minister of Defence should have the right to allocate expenditure within the predetermined sum which should be paid to the Service Ministry as a grant in aid. An expert committee drawn from both the Civil Service and business and industry should be established to review the methods of financial control within the Services and bring these methods up to date. In particular they should be asked to consider means of financing the capital expenditure of the Forces in such a way that a coherent capital programme is possible.
In other words, I believe that the time has come when these great enterprises—that is what they have become—should be run in the modern way which we devised when we had nationalised industries and not in the ancient way which emerges from an Act of 1861. It is time that we had a far, far more fundamental review of this whole problem than even this most helpful Committee has suggested.

9.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage. I should like to take the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) up on one of his interesting pieces of crystal gazing. He seemed to think that we should have an enormous great Ministry of Defence to run our organisation. I want to ask him one practical question. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) suggested that my Department might perhaps move to Edinburgh. I do not know whether he would be able to encompass the whole sphere of a new Ministry of Defence up in Edinburgh. I do not know where else in London the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks we might house such an enormous organisation. There are these practical problems. Perhaps I may deal with them in more detail later.

Mr. Bence: We will help the Minister get them in Edinburgh.

Mr. Profumo: We have had a very interesting debate and I am most grateful to the House, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and all the members of the Estimates Committee for the attention which they have devoted to the problems of my Department and the many valuable points which have been raised.
Before I come to the issues of detail, I want to say a word about the comments which appear in the Report. Every suggestion was most carefully examined by whichever Department was concerned. Some of the recommendations were recommendations which I had foreseen. Others were not. In each case we examined our whole position afresh in the light of the evidence, the text of the Report, and the combined experience of our several Departments. In our replies


we tried to give a clear, concise statement of our view without seeking to obscure the issue or to pretend that there was no difference between us if there really was a difference between us. In doing this, it was necessary in some cases to refer once again to the points which had been given in evidence.
In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham says, I do not see how this could have been avoided, because if it could have been avoided it would have meant that the witnesses had failed to give the Committee in the first place all the information that they had in answer to its inquiries. Where new points have been produced in the Report, they were dealt with to the best of our ability, as I hope to show when I deal with the recommendations individually. Where our assessment of the nature of the problem and the best way to solve it—that is what the Committee has been trying to get out—differed from the Committee, with the greatest respect I must say that I think it was right for us to set down the relevant factors as fully as possible.
There were 20 recommendations in the Report concerned with my Department in whole or in part. I should like to give the right proportions of what was accepted. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) did a good deal of work over the week-end, but I think he got his numbers slightly off beam here. Out of the 20, five were accepted with qualifications. Only six of them after the most careful consideration I felt unable to accept. Nine recommendations were accepted in full. I must confess that my right hon. Friends and I were a little at a loss to understand why some of our replies, which we thought accepted the Committee's recommendations either in full or with some qualifications which we felt were necessary, were singled out for special mention as being unsatisfactory. Perhaps the most unexpected comment was the reaction to my appointment of the Nye Committee. Here we set out to meet in every detail the wishes of the Committee, at any rate as we understood them from the questions they asked when taking evidence.
At the time when I submitted my formal observations, the actual terms of reference had not been settled. I shall

have something to say about the Nye Committee later, but I make these remarks as a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and I understand his feeling that it would have been easier had we explained the full text of the terms of reference at the time. However, as I have said, they had not been settled.
In this matter we were in full agreement with what we understood to be the Committee's views. If in this and some of our other observations we failed in communication or in style and we gave the wrong impression, then this is my fault and I very much regret it. On looking at our observations again I think that we may have aimed a little too much at compression and at the use of plain words but, if that is the case, at least this is the fault of which Government Departments are not generally accused.
I should like now to deal with some of the criticisms in the Report. I will start with those to which our answers did not appear to give entire satisfaction and, for convenience, I will take them in the order in which they occur in the Report. First, Recommendation No. 2. The basic problem, as I see it, is this. The primary object of an Army is to be able to fight and, generally speaking, the officers are there to lead.
The old German idea was that one had a general staff of officers and that once one got on that general staff one stayed there. That may be the sort of system of which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) would approve, and with it we certainly could do what the Committee had in mind. However, this has never been thought to be the right answer for our Forces in this country. We have always believed that an officer should divide his time between command and staff and that the senior commanders should be men who have experience in all fields. If we are to continue to do this—and I say "if"—We would be hard put to it to leave an officer in a staff job for more than about three years at a time.
If an officer is to get on he normally spends about four years in the rank of lieutenant-colonel and, as the hon. Member for Walsall, South will find about his distinguished brother, about four years as colonel or brigadier. If he is to get any field experience at all in these


ranks we must not keep him for too long in staff appointments. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Lichfield) recognises, there are distinct advantages, perhaps for the War Office more than any other part of the Army, not to keep them in staff appointments for too long. For my money give me staff officers who have had recent experience of the sharp end.
Further, the more they move around, within reason, of course, and get wider experience, both in the field and in different staff appointments, the better their value. On the technical side—and I recognise at once that it is more the technical side that hon. Members have in mind—continuity is maintained by professional and technical grades in the Civil Service, who remain in their appointments for considerable periods and there are, in fact—to answer the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East —production engineers on each one of the projects in the Master General of Ordnance's Department.
As the hon. Member for Mitcham said, this is all a question of balance. It is exactly that and I accept that it is. One of the tasks of the Nye Committee will be to examine the possibility of going further with the principle that posts, where continuity is required, should in general go to civilians and, where fresh military experience is needed, we should go for soldiers; and I realise that this is what the Estimates Committee really wants to happen.
I wonder if there may not have been some misunderstanding about our reaction to Recommendation No. 5. It seems to me that what hon. Members are really asking for is that the responsibility for establishments should not be vested in a whole mass of committees but that the Director of Establishments himself should have more power.
There is, in fact, only one Establishments Committee which is concerned with regular establishment control. I think that hon. Members would have liked, the Director of Establishments to have been all-powerful above this Committee, but unless we change the whole system by which the Army has traditionally been run, I do not think that this is possible. All the members of the Army Council have well-defined and far-reaching responsibilities for which they

are individually and directly responsible to me. Among these responsibilities, are, of course, the establishments in their own individual departments, and I look to them directly for the utmost economy and efficiency.
So it really would be impossible for anyone below the level of the Army Council to have any overriding authority. What happens is that if there is a disagreement on the Establishments Committee, the matter is referred to a number of directors who are appointed by the various members of the Army Council who have to deal with establishments. As my hon. Friend mentioned, these are called the chartered directors, and one of these directors is the Director of Establishments himself. It may be that they do not meet as a formal committee, but all have adjacent offices and these things are very largely done in order to save time and make for efficiency. That is what happens. It is done by minutes. If there is a disagreement here, the Director of Establishments has a veto and has the right to refer the problem to the Army Council, and, therefore, to me. I do not quite see any other way in which this very complex problem can be effectively and collectively dealt with.
I hate to enter into controversy with anyone who has as much knowledge as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) about accounting systems, and I should hate to cross swords with him, but the difficulty about Recommendation No. 9 seems to be that the Army accounting system, in the same way, I am sure, as the great majority of those of other Government Departments, is based on the requirements of Parliament—that money voted for a purpose shall be used only for this purpose. If we are to carry out this responsibility properly. I do not see that our auditors in commands need the professional qualifications, which, incidentally take about five years to gain, so much as an intimate knowledge and understanding of the Service and of the command in which they work.
Let us stand for a minute behind the chair of the auditor looking at thousands of work tickets to see what happens. What he has to do is to see whether the work sheets represent what he knows from experience to be the proper tasks. He does not need, with respect, the same


sort of experience and knowledge which the hon. Gentleman has of balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, differentiations between capital and revenue, matters of taxation and similar considerations which are the substance of the ordinary run of commercial accounts. What he does want to know is exactly what the rules are about the use of the transport of which he is examining the work tickets and what sort of jobs the unit under review should properly be engaged on.
Hon. Members have referred to financial advice. It is my view that financial advice to a commander is best given by someone trained and experienced in the Army and its ways on the one hand, and, on the other, in the requirements of Government accounting. In our reply, we drew special attention to the importance of training, and I must emphasise this point. I am satisfied that in the War Office, as in other Government Departments, audit work is appropriate to members of the executive and clerical classes of the Civil Service, and they can discharge and are discharging it with full competence after training. Indeed, only two years ago, the Comptroller and Auditor General—who is not appointed by me but by Parliament—spoke publicly of the essential differences between the function of accounting in Government and in commerce, and concluded that the control of Government expenditure would not be assisted by the adoption of commercial accounting methods.
I turn now to Recommendations Nos. 11 and 12. I know how strongly the Committee feels about the importance of costing, and I entirely agree that it is one of the most important tools of management—perhaps even more important in Government than in private business. Therefore, we must apply the touchstone of cost all along the line. Here, we are not in any dispute at all, but what I feel that I did not succeed in explaining to the Committee is that this very specialist operation known as costing, employing for the most part technically-qualified staff with special training in the art, does not represent the total of our effort in applying this technique.
For example, we have just installed an automatic data processing system for dealing with Army pay, and we are working with further installations of this sort to deal with stores, as well as other measures of mechanisation. But these decisions are decisions of management, and in each case they are taken only after a full calculation has been made of the comparative cost of the old systems and the alternative systems. But these calculations do not really require the use of a special costing staff. They are based on figures of man-hours, machine time, capital and running costs, and so on, carried out by 0 & M.
I think that the point at issue is whether or not we should introduce into the War Office a new director—a Director of Costings. I must say quite frankly that nothing would have been easier than that I should have accepted that recommendation. No one in the War Office would have been the worse off for the creation of a new director's post with a ready-made staff to take over and, I have no doubt, some temptation to increase it. Some people would have been relieved of their existing responsibilities, but I do not believe that anyone at the level of director could do what I know the Committee really has in mind. That is the reason for the existence of the Costings Policy Cornmittee, presided over by a deputy-secretary. That is the lowest level—that is to say, just below the Army Council —at which decisions of this kind can properly be taken. A director is a whole level lower than a deputy-secretary, so I think that we are half way to meeting the Committee.
What of the other half, namely, the feeling that it is wrong for these problems to be solved by committee? In view of the strong feeling of the Committee, I am proposing to give new instructions to the deputy-secretary concerned to the effect that the responsibility for these matters is fairly and squarely on his shoulders, and that the Costings Policy Committee exists only to advise him, and that any future decisions shall be his decisions and not those of the Committee as such. I hope that with these explanations, the House will feel that the point the Estimates Sub-Committee had in mind has now been met.
Next, we come to recommendation No. 15. We have accepted this, but I think that the Committee did not fully appreciate my reservation, which amounts simply to this. In the case of intramural expenditure, although we told the Committee that broad estimates had recently been made for certain big projects, hitherto there has not been a drill for preparing detailed estimates. This problem applies not only to new projects but also to those already on our books. I have agreed that this should be altered.
The reason I chose £¼. million as a starting point is that there are at the moment about 800 projects concerned. Most of them are quite small and, with the best will in the world, if we are not to divert a wholly disproportionate amount of our effort in this direction, we have to introduce this new system by degrees, and it seems sensible to make a start with the big money. This initial batch will cover nearly half the money we spend annually on development which, for a start in this difficult task will, I hope, be thought satisfactory.
The Committee expressed some apprehension about the Nye Committee and whether it would really be given the chance of doing the job which it had in mind. May I remind the House for one moment of the breadth of experience of those unofficial members who, I am happy to say, have accepted my invitation to serve on the Committee? First of all, there is General Nye, a most eminent officer of considerable experience both of the Army and of the War Office, a distinguished pro-consul and now a leading industrialist. Then we have Mr. Harald Peake, the Chairman of Lloyds Bank and late Chairman of the Steel Company of Wales. He is now so renowned and so respected in business circles as to need no further introduction. In addition there is Sir Owen Wansbrough-Jones, who has an almost unrivalled experience of academic and Service life.
When I announced the Committee, the terms of reference had not been finally decided, but now perhaps the House would like me to give them in full. They are:
(1) To examine the functions of the War Office, its organisation and the distribution of duties within it, and to report to the Army Council.

This is the first and main section of the terms of reference referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham. If hon. Members on both sides of the House chew over that term of reference, they will find that it covers absolutely everything, and I am sure that that was what was in the mind of the Estimates Sub-Committee. It is comprehensive and allows the Committee to deal with any factor which it thinks bears upon the efficiency of the War Office.
I have been listening most carefully to all the arguments and points made in the debate and totting them up in my mind to see whether I could find one which would not be covered by this term of reference. I do not think that any hon. Member would find one, and I am convinced that Sir Archibald Nye would look at it in that way.

Mr. Bence: What about moving the War Office to Edinburgh?

Mr. Profumo: Whether this Committee will feel it is right to move the War Office from London to Edinburgh is a matter which I will not prejudice in advance, but certainly the Committee could look at that matter and no doubt would read the hon. Member's speech.
The remainder of the terms of reference deal with points which were referred to in the Eighth Report which we want to make sure are among those which the Committee chooses for examination. The fact that these points are included does not in any way qualify the first section.
The rest of the terms of reference are as follows:
(2) To report specifically on the following:

(i) the organisation for formulating requirements of equipment and for research, development and production;
(ii) the possibility of reducing the number of senior positions held by military officers, particularly in posts whose functions are of an administrative rather than a policy-making nature:"—
That seems to fit in fairly well.
(iii) the practicability of making more senior positions in the War Office open to civilians as well as to military officers.
This is another important point which the Committee had in mind.
The next term of reference is:
(3) In considering the organisation of the War Office the Committee should have regard to the need:

(i) to reduce total staff to a minimum;


(ii) so to arrange the distribution of duties as to allow for removal of staff from Central London conformably to Government policy for departments generally."
I think that this would take the point which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) had in mind.
(4) The Committee should base their recommendations on the central organisation for defence in being at the time they report. They should however examine and report on the extent to which the War Office is organised and equipped to play its full part in that organisation. They should also inform themselves of any current proposals for changes in this field and draw attention in their report to the way in which such changes would affect their recommendations.
This last paragraph, which I think will be very much after the heart of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, was included because we are very conscious that the War Office is only a part of a larger organisation, and, as has been explained to the House on several occasions, the whole machinery of central defence organisation is constantly under review. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham will welcome this. I felt it essential to give General Nye this guidance in this respect so that we should be what I think is called à la page.
The Committee over which General Nye will preside will, therefore, cover Recommendations Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 14. I do not think that we have left anything to chance.
I will conclude by saying a few words about the War Office itself. I think that it was Lord Asquith who said that the War Office kept three sets of statistics: one to mislead the Cabinet, one to mislead the public, and one to mislead itself. We have come a long way from those days. I assure hon. Members that we dropped that little habit a long time ago. The War Office is constantly under fire. It is often lampooned. It has been described in a whole host of different ways at one time and another. The most recent comparison I heard was with an elephant.
Perhaps it is true that the War Office does take about two years to give birth to something. The War Office is certainly very large. It is powerful. It is proud. It does not like to be hurried. It is sensitive. It carries huge burdens. Once it has learned a lesson, it does not

often forget. Perhaps the most important part of the comparison is that it has been trained so as to be able to respond to changes of course and environment which might well appear to be beyond its power of manoeuvre. The truth is that the War Office is far more flexible than might appear to anyone who is not working inside.
In the last three years, the War Office has undertaken three major changes of course, the addition of part of the Ministry of Supply, which involved the transfer of over 2,500 people, the civilianisation of its works organisation, and now the transfer, which is about to take place, of this organisation to the Ministry of Public Building and Works. Moreover, during this period it has been reducing its numbers and learning to adapt itself to the needs of an all-Regular Army.
Within the Department itself, we are constantly studying ways and means of improving the set-up still further. No large administrative headquarters can possibly be perfect. In the War Office, we all know this. We realise that there is a lot of scope for improvement, so we really welcome the opportunity of the sort which the Estimates Committee has given, and which the Nye Committee will now give, of a fresh look by people who are not involved in the day-to-day work of the machine and can, therefore, think more objectively about the design.
Of course, we have to look at all this in the context of the size of the Army and its civilian backing which the War Office administers. With a smaller Army, one requires smaller overheads, and the War Office is part of the overheads, but we must remember, nevertheless, that the modern Army, even if it be smaller than hitherto, now uses immensely complex equipment and has a welfare state of its own which it carries about the world with it, with all that that means in administration. The Army also has to link very much more closely with the other Services, and it plays a great part in the international field.
All this generates a much greater load of administrative work at the top than was the case before the war. What is more, because of our democratic system and the speed of our communications, answers are always wanted at once. This, perhaps, explains in part why it may


appear to be a little top-heavy and to have more senior people responsible and able to give decisions than might appear right in some people's eyes at first sight.
In spite of this, we did in giving evidence explain that the War Office had reduced its strength from 6,814 in 1956 to just over 6,000 in 1960. Then, we took over some staff from the Ministry of Supply, and started reducing again, coming down from 8,400 to the 7,700 we have today. This represents a reduction of over 8·5 per cent. in under three years. I believe that this would be quite a feat even for a large private business concern.
I have given instructions that we should cut still further, this time to about 7,000, as soon as possible. This will mean a further reduction of nearly 10 per cent. I say to the hon. Member for Aberavon that this may be regarded as an arbitrary cut, but I have set a target for the War Office which I believe is realistic and which we can achieve. It is something which it would be right for us to work for. What matters is that we are showing that we are continuously trying to cut still further and we are never satisfied with the fact that we have managed to cut in the past.
I hope that the Nye Committee will help us in this and perhaps will find it possible to suggest even further savings. If it thinks there are too many senior officers and officials, it will say so. But I totally reject the disreputable accusation of the hon. Member for Aberavon that we are just creating jobs for senior officers and senior officials. I am sure that when he reads his remarks he will find that they do not match up to the usual contributions which he makes in this House, and I do not believe that he meant them.
When one considers that my Department is responsible for controlling about 400,000 soldiers and civilians and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham said, for a total annual expenditure of well over £500 million, for 13 Royal Ordnance Factories with an annual turnover of about £30 million, six research and development establishments, and for a large number of schools, hospitals and other installations as well as military intelligence and operational planning, I do not think that its size can be said to be self-evidently exces-

sive. Of the 7,700 people who form the present strength of my Department, over 1,000 are on detached duties in places from Edinburgh to Hong Kong.
Finally, the House might like to know that by way of Christmas salutations I have sent to all members of the Nye Committee the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee and the Third Special Report, and this will be followed by the OFFICIAL REPORT of today's proceedings, so that all the members of the Nye Committee may be fully seized of the feelings of the House before they start their important deliberations. I am sure that hon. Members would want to join me in wishing them well in finding further solutions to the immensely intricate and difficult problems of the War Office so that our modern Army is served in a way of which it can be proud and so that, although it may be a little smaller than in the past, it proves a just successor to the Armies of which we have been so proud in the past.

9.48 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: It would be churlish of me if I did not begin my few words by thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State for his speech. He gave evidence not only of great devotion to his task but of profound knowledge of his subject. If only he had given the Estimates Committee the full details of the terms of reference of the Nye Committee which he has given tonight (there would have been no debate.
My right hon. Friend compared the War Office to an elephant. I suppose that he is the mahout sitting on top. It is his job to stick the ankus into the top end of the elephant. The Estimates Committee's job is to stick the spur into the other end of the mahout. I cannot help feeling that if we had not stuck our spur in we should not have had the very forward-looking approach of which my right hon. Friend gave evidence tonight.
This has been a very good debate. The value of debates is not to be judged solely by the attendance of hon. Members. In spite of a very small attendance tonight, this debate has served a useful purpose. I was not able to attend all of the Estimate Committee's meetings—I had other Sub-Committees to attend—but I was convinced that those which I did


attend justified the tributes which have been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).
It was a very good inquiry, but a very difficult one, because we had such good witnesses. They were all such terribly nice chaps who were devoted to their Service and so full of loyalty to the Army. One of the difficulties of this whole subject is that it is permeated by loyalty. Every individual who works in the War Office feels loyalty towards the troops in the field. My right hon. Friend feels loyalty towards the Army, and this very loyalty, admirable as it may be in itself, has tremendous dangers. It tends to obscure the fact that we are dealing with quite a different War Office and Army in 1962 to any that we have had before. I thought that the parallels that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham drew of the creation of the Jaguar motor car and the need for continuity in expert advice and service in the War Office were very true and typical of the whole approach.
I do not want to overstress the work of the Estimates Committee. It is just as big a mistake to be over loyal to the Estimates Committee as it is to be over loyal to existing methods in the Army, but I must say that the Estimates Committee drew up a very formidable indictment. The Committee is not out to criticise, it is out to help; but it felt that things were very seriously wrong, and although I have welcomed already the approach of my right hon. Friend tonight to the Nye Committee, I feel compelled to say that as yet the remedy of those failings is only a matter of promises and not of performance.
I make no apology for the Estimates Committee in having followed up these replies of the War Office and in giving the comments at the end of the Special Report. I hope that it will be a warning to other Departments that we shall follow up the replies of Departments. Before we had the chance of having these two days' debate a year on the Estimate Committee's Report it was the custom that the Estimates Committee reported, the Departments replied, and that was that. The replies of the Departments were merely accepted, with regret very often, but they were not commented upon in this House. Now

we have the chance of these two debates every year on the Estimate Committee's Report, I hope that it will be recognised by all Departments that we mean to follow up. I hope that it will be recognised by the War Office that in the course of a few months or a year we shall be asking the War Office for a progress report on the very matters that we have been talking about tonight, so do not let any Government Department, still less the War Office, think that the Estimates Committee will allow the grass to grow under its feet.
I said that it was a formidable indictment and a fairly weighty indictment that the Estimates Committee drew up, and at the end of this short debate I think it would be a good thing if I summarised its main sources of anxiety, as found in the concluding paragraphs of the Report. These questions have been dealt with in every speech, but I make no apology for summarising them. These are, first, the overall preponderance of military personnel in the War Office and the comparatively short tours of duty of the senior officers. I think that somebody at some time has to make up his mind what the main objective of the various Departments in the War Office is. If the main objective of the more scientific departments is the production and development of scientific weapons, I believe that the present short terms of duty not only of military officers but of civilian officers cannot be sustained.
Our second cause of anxiety was the number of committees. In the course of our inquiries we found committee after committee, and when we asked when these committees met we were told that they met very seldom indeed. I do not think that my right hon. Friend should allow himself to be fobbed off by being told that a committee or a series of committees is being appointed to deal with certain questions, whether it is redundancy or anything else. One cannot run a great business by appointing a number of committees unless one ensures that these committees meet regularly and report regularly to somebody else. After the inquiry I was left with the impression that this did not happen in the War Office.
A still more serious indictment which runs parallel with the observations and


recommendations of the Zuckerman Committee is the tardiness of the War Office in improving the costing of its control procedure, and in this the Treasury is not altogether acquitted of responsibility. The question of extra mural costing was first discussed with the Ministry of Supply in 1958, and with the War Office in 1960. It seems that some people were dragging their feet.
In spite of all the generous things that are rightly said in this House about the Army, the War Office, and, indeed, the Treasury, the basic fact remains that these three points and several others caused acute anxiety to a Committee of Members of this House. I do not claim that Members are more intelligent than others. They are, however, more experienced, and when seven or eight Members spend some months examining witnesses and deliberating amongst themselves, aided by expert advice provided by the staff of the House, impartial people coming fresh to the subject, and then feel profound anxiety on such a large number of subjects, I do not think that these anxieties can be brushed aside easily, and I hope that the Nye Committee and my right hon. Friend will take the anxieties of the Committee seriously.
We do not profess to be infallible. We make masses of mistakes. We deiliberately stick our necks out. We deliberately throw ideas into the air, expecting many of them to Abe shot down, but if I were my right hon. Friend I hope that I would look again at some of my preconceived notions, many of which spring from the most admirable loyalty to the Service for which he has the honour to be responsible.
Then the Committee stuck its neck out still further and departed wildly from its terms of reference—which is a very good thing to do occasionally—and expressed doubts about whether it was necessary to retain separate Service Headquarters Departments. If it was out of order for the Committee to consider that, no doubt it would be out of order to refer to it tonight, but I hope that the spirit of inquiry which rightly pervades the Estimates Committee will pervade the minds of all those who are responsible for long-term thinking in military matters. I hope that there are people responsible for long-term think-

ing. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his senior officers and senior civil servants are not so immersed in the day-to-day problems of Army administration as to be unable to devote long-term thinking to these matters.
Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend, for whom the House has a great affection, and who has a great loyalty to those for whom he is responsible, will not let that loyalty completely blind him to the fact that a Committee of Members of the House came back from its inquiries deeply disturbed.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament relating to the War Office and of the Third Special Report of the Estimates Committee.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Bill [Lords] and the Betting Duties Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BETTING DUTIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT

British Transport Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1962 [draft laid before the House, 28th November] approved.—[Mr. Hay.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee. — [Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. Are we not to have a Scottish Minister moving this Motion?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Lawson: May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that not one Scottish Minister is present?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may draw my attention to the fact, but the totality of the exercise upon myself is precisely nil.

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Lawson: Now that the Secretary of State has arrived in the Chamber, are we not be given an explanation?

Mr. Speaker: I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), but I have been compelled to move to the next item on the Order Paper and we have got past the point where his observations were relevant.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to education in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) grants to any board established under that Act for the purpose of discharging functions relating to examination;
(2) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums so payable by way of general grant or of Exchequer Equalisation

Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland;
(3) sums by way of the return to teachers or to their personal representatives of the whole or a part of contributions paid by such teachers to the Secretary of State for the purpose of supporting pensions for the widows, widowers, children and dependants of teachers, and sums by way of interest on contributions so returned;
(4) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State.

B. The payment into the Exchequer by the Secretary of State of any sums which he may be authorised so to pay under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Noble.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue with amendments the provisions relating to the payment of Exchequer Equalisation and Transitional Grants to local authorities in Scotland, to increase the limit of contributions payable to such authorities under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1944, to amend the law of Scotland relating to valuation and rating, and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums so payable—

(a) by way of Exchequer Equalisation or Transitional Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland;
(b)under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1944.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Staveley [copy laid before the House, 12th December], approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Llandudno [copy laid before the House, 12th December], approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Orders of the Day — SHIPBUILDING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

10.6 p m.

Mr. Paul Williams: Yesterday we debated the subjects of employment and unemployment. In all the four major speeches during the course of this debate there was no more than a passing reference to the problems of British shipbuilding. This I believe to have been a disgrace and a slur upon the House. It shows how casually this island race and this maritime nation treats both the shipping and the shipbuilding industries.
We can have little doubt that British shipping—and I start with shipping rather than shipbuilding—is of paramount and continuing importance to us as an island race. To quote figures may be tedious, but it is not unhelpful. In 1961, the earnings of British shipping topped £560 million, and the positive net contribution of British shipping to our balance of payments position and to our invisible exports was about £50 million. These are not small figures. To repeat a phrase "they ain't hay". They make a positive contribution to our standard of living and level of employment, for without these positive earnings the British economy would be sailing pretty close to the rocks of economic disaster.
There are two problems facing British shipping today. One is the problem of flag discrimination, and at a moment of high freight rates and the absence of profits this is perhaps the lesser of the two evils, although it is a rock submerged by the high tide of depression. The other problem is the surplus world tonnage, which results in depresed freight rates, these depressed freight rates themselves causing tonnage to be laid up. If, perchance, there is a recovery in freights, this brings back into operation the laid-up tonnage, Which, in due course, is a sanction against real recovery. These are the twin problems presently facing the British shipping industry—and, indeed, the world shipping industry.
No one can doubt that there is a vital necessity for a large British shipbuilding industry. It is a vital part of our economy, not only in terms of our balance

of payments but because every ship built has itself an export element in its contribution to our economy. It is either a direct export, in the sense that it is an order by an overseas owner, or an export in the sense that it is a British ship which will continue to earn repeatedly over the years. This fact is seldom acknowledged by Government and seldom recognised by those outside these twin industries.
Today the British fleet totals about 20 million tons. If this fleet were to be replaced at a rate of 1 million tons a year it would be—to put it mildly,in the present depressed state of orders—a highly satisfactory position for British shipbuilding yards. But this is not happening, and we must ask ourselves why and try to find a remedy for this difficult situation. In a few moments I hope to do that.
Before I come to my propositions I want to refer to another factor in the situation. The capacity of the British yards today is 1½ million tons a year plus. This we must take as the irreduceable minimum and the target at which we must aim.
If on the basis of 20 million total tonnage we should be able to look for 1 million tons replacement orders it means that the balance must be made up by export orders. How competitive is British industry today? It is no use talking about exports if the industry is not competitive. Over recent years many attacks have been launched on the sin p-building industry. Management has been attacked as fustian, fuddy-duddy and out of date. The labour force has been attacked as being antediluvian and feudal. None of these accusations can be justified today. Minor criticisms can be and must be made. There are still inefficient managements and some firms which are not re-equipping at the rate at which they should. There are many labour practices which are more akin to the atmosphere and attitude of the 1930s, although I can understand the hesitation of some people in that respect, and many people adopt practices which are irrelevant and damaging to the industry.
Having said all that, I must add that I believe that the British yards are competitive with foreign yards and, but for the subsidy element provided for foreign


shipyards by their Governments, the British yards would be in a position to scoop the pool of all the orders on the basic costs of production alone. It is also necessary to recognise that the shipbuilding industry, as such, is an assembly industry and responsible for approximately one-third of the cost of any ship which is produced; so that, comparatively speaking, it has only a small price margin in which to manoeuvre.
Yesterday the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) spoke at some length, and quite rightly, about labour relations and the atmosphere inside industry. Although I have said that this is an industry which is more effective than most people suspect, I believe that there is yet much to be done in the way of improving labour relations; and if the recent Bill introduced by the Government can help, so much the better. What is needed is for management and unions to strike a bargain, the one to give security and the other to exchange flexibility. This is a politician's phrase and remains to be worked out on the factory floor and in the shipyards. But it is good for politicians to say these things in the hope that labour, management and unions will follow that idea.
Today we may be in no doubt at all that because of world demand for ships; because of the surplus tonnage which exists and because of the world shipbuilding capacity there is and there is likely to be into the foreseeable future an over supply, so that we are in a situation of grave danger. To put it in most measured terms, we face the possibility that whether British shipyards are economic or not there is a danger that half of them will need to be closed. That is not because of inefficiency but because of the world situation. I say this with care and deliberation, because I do not want to say or to do anything to harm the chances of British industry getting orders. But one must make clear to the Government that unless some action is taken there is the danger that half the British yards will face the need to close down within the next twelve months.
I come now to the recommendations which I wish to make to the Government. The first is a negative recommendation. I do not believe that we should delay decisions on policy pending any inter-

national settlement or further discussion. I do not believe that we can afford to wait. I consider that the country is looking for crisp and decisive government. Unless it gets that it will be dissatisfied, and rightly so. To wait on an international discussion might be like waiting for the flood and it may be that we should be engulfed by the problems that would descend upon us.
Secondly I recommend that there should be a speeding up of the naval shipbuilding programme. I think particularly in terms of the need to place orders for depot ships and for fleet auxiliaries. The programme should be expanded and accelerated. I will give a few simple figures. The placing of an order for one frigate equals work for 300 or 400 men for three-and-a-quarter years directly. Indirectly, for every man employed in the shipyards there are three working outside on sub-contract and supply work.
If we could provide in the building of one frigate jobs for 300 or 400 men for three-and-a-quarter years plus the ratio of three men working outside for each one in the yards, in terms of an auxiliary service replacement programme, this would involve the provision of jobs for 4,000 or 5,000 men in the same ratio for men on sub-contract work for every man working in the yard. If the Government were in a position to place orders for three frigates and nine or ten auxiliaries, that would provide direct employment for a very considerable number of people which could be paid for by a 1 per cent. switch in defence expenditure.
My next point is on scrapping. At present 2·4 million tons of British shipping is more than twenty years' old. If we regard the more economic life of a ship as about twenty years, what is wrong with trying to find some fiscal incentive to scrapping this tonnage, not selling it abroad for use further to depress the rates but taking it out of service altogether? To put it another way, 2·75 million tons of dry cargo tonnage was built before or during the last war. That is a similar amount of tonnage which also could be taken out of operation. If that were to happen it would mean that the Government would have to find some way of bridging the gap between trading and scrap values because


there would be no advantage at all in this tonnage being "scrapped"—I put the words in inverted commas—if it is to be sold abroad further to depress freight rates. It must be scrapped and taken out of operation altogether.
My next point is about those new young nations which, in the face of economic reason, wish to have their own merchant fleets. This is a disadvantage to British shipbuilding, but it could put this country on the inside track of getting orders for the tonnage which those now young nations wish to have. They want merchant navies because that is a status symbol of independence. If they wish to have them, let us provide them with the ships. We could do it in one of two ways, either by merchant banks coming in and being more positive in financing these operations, or in terms of what I have called "tied aid ".
I welcomed the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday when he said that he would make available £10 million for what I loosely call "tied aid". What is the point of providing loans if those loans are to be used to buy German, American or other products? I understand the political difficulties, but let us if possible provide loans conditional on nations taking up the slack in our economy. To coin a phrase, this could be exporting our unemployment. If it provided what other nations want and provided employment for us, if it ran counter to G.A.T.T., I am afraid that G.A.T.T. must go. This is much more important than hocus-pocus international agreements.
What I found disappointing in the speech of the Chancellor was that there was no constructive suggestion about how this would help British shipbuilding. I have one further point to make—and I hope to make time for the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to have a few words.
I will admit that in the past I have dragged my feet on the question of a nuclear merchant ship; I have wanted to wait until we had a commercial venture. Now I want to get my feet wet. It is time that we learned lessons on how to operate a nuclear merchant ship. The Atomic Energy Authority has spent £500 million on the provision of nuclear power stations. For one-tenth of that sum we could make some progress on

getting a nuclear merchant ship. Why not? Can the Government tell us? There are one or two alternatives, and they are so close in terms of the space needed in a ship that there is no reason at all why we should not now start placing an order for this ship to be constructed.
British shipbuilding is vital to Britain's survival, both economically and militarily. No Government can afford idly to stand by while this industry declines. Those who work in the yard, and those who stand at the employment exchanges, demand thought from the Government, and they demand action, as well.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: I shall be extremely brief, because the Parliamentary Secretary has been kind enough to indicate the amount of time which he would like to reply to the debate.
I wholeheartedly support almost everything which was said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), and I congratulate him on taking this opportunity to raise what are for us and for the country very grave issues. These two industries are vital to Britain, as the Parliamentary Secretary of all people realises. I recognise that the shipping position is extremely difficult; it depends very largely on international action. But, like the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, I feel that we cannot delay the action. We should like to see evidence of some dynamic action, and I support what he said about the new nations. I think that we should earnestly try to reach agreement with them about shipping. We have been far too sectional and limited in our approach towards these countries. We ought to be willing to make concessions and to establish mutual responsibility for trade between our countries.
There are many things which ought to be considered about shipbuilding. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would have spoken about school ships. I think that we ought to consider every possible way in which we might help the shipbuilding industry. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to nuclear propulsion, and I should like to add something to what he


said. I think that we are losing heavily in the race for nuclear propelled vessels.
I have probably spoken for too long already, but, in conclusion, I should like to see some sense of a building programme—and I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I would not stigmatise the British shipping industry. We have very good shipping. I do not think that we should emphasise the volume of shipping over 20 years of age, for our fleet is a very good fleet. But in the present situation we need, above everything else, a building programme. When we talk about subsidies by other countries, this is in part an expression of the fact that other countries have established for themselves building programmes, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will in particular deal with this problem of trying to get a building programme which might be a forward programme for four or five years.

10.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) has done well to raise this matter before the House adjourns for the Recess, and I have no quarrel at all to find with the spirit in which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) echoed some of his remarks. The truth is that British shipbuilders today are facing a crisis graver than anything since the 1930's. There are thousands of men who have devoted their lives to the industry and who face a very anxious Christmas, with dark prospects for 1963. Since shipbuilding is essentially an assembly industry, of course the effect of bad times tends to spread beyond the shipyards, and that is why we are so deeply concerned at the present position.
My hon. Friend rightly devoted part of his speech to the difficulties through which shipping is passing. Unfortunately, the slump in shipping is mainly caused by a world-wide surplus of ships. Profit margins of most shipowners today are below the level needed to cover depreciation, and that is why so many of them are not replacing old tonnage at the present moment. But, as the House knows, the world's shipowners are urgently trying to reach an international

agreement for the stabilisation of freight rates.
My hon. Friend suggested that the Government should encourage the scrapping of old ships. We have considered this. But we doubt whether a subsidised scrapping scheme—I am not referring to a scrap-build scheme, but to a scrapping scheme—would be beneficial if it was confined to this country. On the other hand, an international scheme, in which several maritime nations took part, might be a different matter. We are quite ready to explore this possibility, but the first step must be for the shipowners to reach agreement among themselves for some form of laying up scheme.
My hon. Friend suggested a number of other ways in which the Government might help our shipyards, but before I come to them I should like to examine the present state of the industry and I want to be perfectly frank. There are two problems—a long-term and a short-term one. In the long term, unlike my hon. Friend, we think that some reduction in the present capacity is inevitable. By how much is a matter of opinion.

Mr. P. Williams: In Britain?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: In Britain. By how much is a matter of opinion. I should not like to express an opinion on that. We are often urged to collaborate with the industry in producing what is called a planned scheme for rationalisation. I ask hon. Members to consider the difficulties. We have no power to force a shipyard to close if it wishes to stay open. Neither have we any power to compel a shipyard to stay in business if it wishes to close. Even if we had such powers, they would be extremely difficult to apply.
Most unfortunately the outlook for the industry in the short term is more critical. When I replied to the debate on 15th February of this year I warned the House to expect some further decline. I said this:
… if we assume that orders can be got in 1962 and 1963 at the same rate as in 1961, then we estimate that the total tonnage under construction will fall to perhaps less than 1 million tons in two years time. That, it is true, represents only 60 per cent. of present capacity …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 1644]


At the time it rather looked as if the orders were going to continue at the 1961 level. In the event there has been a sharp falling off, and orders so far booked this year are running at approximately 200,000 tons below the 1961 figures. If there is no recovery during the next year or year and a half, our shipyards will be down to less than one-half of their present capacity before 1964 is out.
So far as we can tell, British orders are no longer going abroad to any great extent. We know of a total of 35,000 tons of genuine British orders placed abroad this year, compared with a total of about 125,000 tons of foreign orders secured by the United Kingdom. This is prima facie evidence that our shipyards are once again competitive. Certainly my right hon. Friend and I have been impressed by the determined way in which they are now fighting for orders.
I want to say here a word of caution, because in their desire to keep their men at work many yards are accepting contracts at a loss. The prices being tendered have ceased to give a reliable indication of the true cost. They are rather a measure now of the depth of the purse of many of the shipyards concerned. We understand, for example, that the decision to close the well-known yard of Simons-Lobnitz was not precipitated by lack of work but rather by the scale of the losses that had to be accepted in order to obtain what work there was.
The distress of those who face redundancy is understandable. Yet before they blame their employers or the Government I hope they will search their own conscience. Can the men and their unions honestly claim to have done their utmost to work new machines to best advantage, or to secure the greatest efficiency and flexibility of labour? That is the crucial question. Whatever the immediate future may hold, whatever artificial—and I stress "artificial" steps might be taken to help the industry through its present problems, its future will never be secure unless the productivity in British yards equals that of the best foreign yards.
Meanwhile, the urgent problem is how to tide the industry over the next two years, in the hope that by then the outlook for shipping will have brightened

and have led to a revival of normal replacement orders.
My hon. Friend had a number of suggestions. The Government are naturally examining how far it would be desirable to advance the naval programme. I can add little to the reply of my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to a Question put to him on 5th December. In his reply he pointed out the fact that there was not a great deal of scope for acceleration. None the less, the contribution which the naval orders make to the industry is a very real one. We accept that and the same is true of other types of Government contracts. The decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, which was announced yesterday, to order three new vehicle ferries from Messrs. Hall Russell of Aberdeen will provide work for at least a year for 1,000 men.
Turing to the question of tied aid, my hon. Friend mentioned what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday about the use of aid to developing countries in a way which will at the same time help our own industries. Certainly, where appropriate, this can apply to ships. Indeed, about £1½ million of our recent aid to Pakistan is to be spent on ships. It must be spent here, although the ships can be new or second-hand. But we must be cautious. The last thing we should wish to do is to tempt developing countries to order ships they would not otherwise build or to provide shipping services which can be provided more cheaply by existing British lines.
Then there is the possibility of a programme of nuclear ships. I yield to none in my eagerness to move forward in this field. Yet even on the most optimistic forecast, I cannot see nuclear ships making much impact on the shipbuilding position as a whole for several years. Parliament has been patient and trusting in this matter and I can assure the House that we are making good progress and expect to carry the matter much further next year. We are confident that we are now working on the right technical lines.
We are left with the conclusion that only by stimulating shipowners to replace old tonnage at once could massive support be brought to the shipyards as a whole. Of course, this is why both


sides of the shipbuilding industry have pressed us to start a scrap-build scheme. There are a number of ways in which such schemes can be operated. Since some of them would require legislation, I cannot describe them now. But whether they are done by Statute or by administrative action, they have one feature in common; ship owners are paid a subsidy if they order new tonnage in exchange for scrapping.
Naturally the Government are examining this matter with care. It would be wrong for us not to do so. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is also discussing it with the ship owners, as he undertook to do, because in the past they have been rather opposed to scrap-build. However, in saying all this I do not want the House to think that we accept the arguments or are in favour of a scheme. Apart from the cost, there is the risk of producing an artificial, short-lived boom which could do great harm to the industry. For example, the 1939 scheme resulted in orders for three-quarters of a million tons being placed within a few weeks of its announcement. I do not think that anything on that scale would be healthy today. However, I repeat that we are examining what might be done as a matter of urgency and we shall, of course, keep Parliament informed.
Let me end where I began. The vast bulk of everything which Britain buys or sells has to come by sea. This is why shipping is, and will remain, vital to our economy and our independence. British shipping in turn relies on a healthy shipbuilding industry and no body of men is more conscious of this than the British ship owners themselves.
Between them these two industries represent an immense investment, not only in terms of money but also in terms of expert management and skilled

labour. I can assure the House that the Government will not stand idly by while this investment runs to ruin.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) had a number of good ideas but, frankly, it is pitiable that he should have come to the House of Commons to ask for frigates to be built in order to give employment. Just as people in the 1930s asked for battleships to be built to create employment, so the hon. Member tonight made the same sort of proposition. Instead of asking for frigates, I beg the hon. Member to think in terms of ships for social purposes; perhaps school ships.
If the hon. Member changed his plea and appealed for 10,000 to 15,000 ton school ships, I am sure that he would get a great deal of support, for he would be carrying out an idea which was pioneered by the British India Steam Navigation Company in that firm's school ships "Dunera" and "Devonia". There is considerable scope for this idea; the carrying of, perhaps, 800 pupils for, say, 14 days or longer to Bergen, Oslo, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, or South to Corunna, Lisbon and Gibraltar. Alternatively, they could be taken by train to some of the places they have only read about in their text books; Marseilles or Venice and then to Itea for Delphi, Iraklion for Knossos, or even Athens herself. This sort of thing would be of such advantage—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.